Template talk:Rayman 1

Active discussions


Good work, but a couple of suggestions. Items and collectibles featured in the original game should definitely be included, since they're every bit as much a part of it as the enemies and levels are.

Should we include powers? Some, like helicopter, would end up in most games' main templates, but they're still fundamental parts of the games, so perhaps they should.

Should we include a group containing spin-offs, remakes and re-releases of the original game? Stuff like the educational games, with their abundance of levels, and the designer games, with their unique items? The inclusion of the Rayman Collector minigames is something I'm not totally comfortable with, since it seems to blur the lines between the original and its derivatives; however, these spin-off elements are still absolutely part of the original game's world. Maybe separate navboxes for some of the spin-offs and links to them in this one? I'm really unsure how to proceed. Thoughts? —Spiraldoor   01:58, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

Hmm, So what of the Plants and Objects, should we include those under the items heading? As for powers, I was thinking of having a Nav-box solely dedicated to them, though I guess we could have it both ways.
As for the spin-offs, I was thinking of giving them all each dedicated templates, but adding the Rayman 1 template to the dedicated ones where relevant. As for the minigames, yeah, those were more an impulse addition, I'll be happy to shove them elsewhere when possible.--  02:07, 14 April 2014 (CEST)
Those are possibilites but perhaps it is better to try out here how the template would look like with the inclusion of the powers and the objects and see if it looks ok or not. I think the Rayman Collector minigames would be more adequate to go to that template we were discussing a while ago, but yet I think these should be included in a particular subgroup. Something like "flash/minigames" for example. The versions/ports could also be integrated somehow. I could try to be less generic but my bed is calling me. -- Haruka  03:00, 14 April 2014 (CEST)
Hm, I've added all the categories that I think shouldn't be all that dubious, the mini-games have been removed for now, I guess what's left for us to figure is how we're dealing with Rayman 1's spinoffs. We could create a distinct section in this template in regards to Rayman 1, or perhaps we could have a master spin-off template, which contains all the levels included within each distinct spin-off.--  14:03, 14 April 2014 (CEST)
The most notable spin-offs are the games included by Rayman Collector if this is a help. -- Haruka  14:17, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

Replacement of previous navigation templates

While the creation of this template is a great idea I don't think it should replace the previous navigation templates we had on the R1 world and level articles. Those made navigation between levels and worlds a lot easier, while this one has to be 'collapsed' and then the levels have to be found in the middle of all this information. In addition, the world articles now lack the list of their levels which is very problematic in terms of content. —    14:23, 15 April 2014 (CEST)

I really don't think the R1 world and level templates are needed. The main R1 template doesn't NEED to be collapsed – navboxes should only be collapsed when there are several of them in the same article, and even then there's a case to be made for leaving them open. R1 levels would never fall under any template other than this one, so I'd be perfectly happy to leave it open on all of them.
As for having to search through the template to find a specific level or world, that's definitely a valid concern, but the benefits of a single, cohesive, coherent, all-encompassing navbox far outweigh this negative, and having six other navboxes which are direct subsets of this one and replicate sections of it without adding anything strikes me as an unwise precedent to set. I'd recommend trying to find other solutions to aid navigation: the R1 menu colour scheme was a superficially nice idea, but if we changed the colours to be more like Template:Rayman series, the links would stand out much more, and if we found a nice way to make the text <small> it would also make the navbox more compact and easier to glance over and navigate. —Spiraldoor   17:46, 15 April 2014 (CEST)
Come to think of it though, one thing I would support is a separate navbox for all the bosses in the Rayman series. There are two ways people will go looking for R1 bosses: in the sense that they're enemies who appear at the end of their R1 world, and in the sense that they're Rayman series bosses. I can imagine someone wanting to jump from Allegro Presto to Space Mama, but I can also imagine someone wanting to jump from Mr Dark to Foutch or Razorbeard. I would also support moving the bosses in the R1 template to the "Enemies" subgroups for their respective worlds. —Spiraldoor   18:24, 15 April 2014 (CEST)
Unfortunately even keeping the template open won't solve the obvious issue that it takes much, much longer to navigate from one level to another. While it's totally fine if you want to visit, say, the Antitoon article, Blue Mountains levels articles are much more relevant to each other than the latter is and it is therefore much more likely that a user will want to navigate from one another. We are sacrificing usability for the sake of an all-encompassing template that is of barely any use in that situation: it's probably faster to go to the Blue Mountains article and then click the wanted level; wait, no, even this is hindered by the last changes, as there isn't even a list of levels for each world now. Unwise, yes. —    19:20, 15 April 2014 (CEST)
I think you may be overestimating the significance of this issue. Yes, it's more likely that a user will want to navigate from one Blue Mountains article to another: that's why we've created a separate subgroup just for Blue Mountains levels!
A user who scrolls to the bottom of one of the level articles will be greeted with this sight, with the current article's link noticeably bolded and enlarged; it's not too much to expect of viewers that they comprehend the layout of the template and grasp that the adjacent links lead to, well, the adjacent levels. —Spiraldoor   20:53, 15 April 2014 (CEST)
I have reverted the template redirects to the main R1 template: if it is to be used, let's do it properly and insert it directly. Please note that this is not a decision regarding the matter being discussed, just basic cleanup.
As for level articles, we seem to both understand each other's arguments. Our opinions simply differ about what outweighs what, so let's see what the others think of it.
Concerning the world articles however, it is out of the question to remove essential information such as the levels from the articles themselves. It is not a question of navigation but a matter of content. If we can find a better way of having a level list in the world articles than using the old templates, let's do it, but the information stays. —    11:13, 16 April 2014 (CEST)
These templates are for navigating between articles, not storing information themselves, and the fact that important information exists exclusively in the templates seems a major problem in retrospect. Of course each world article should contain a list of levels contained in that world. Maybe the second sentence of each world article should be a statement of its levels, and the second sentence of each level article should state the preceding and following levels? —Spiraldoor   13:33, 16 April 2014 (CEST)
Pardon my barging in upon the conversation, but while I appreciate the reason why we've reverted, I still think we should make the current level nav templates more efficient. It's a bit of a pain to have to navigate from a level article, then to the world article, then to another world, then to the level I was looking for. --  13:41, 16 April 2014 (CEST)
I think Spiral's suggestion is a good step forward. —    19:16, 24 April 2014 (CEST)
I've implemented this on the Blue Mountains and Twilight Gulch articles. Everything in order? —Spiraldoor   01:16, 26 April 2014 (CEST)
Never mind, just saw your edits. —Spiraldoor   01:17, 26 April 2014 (CEST)

To bring a new focus on the discussion, while I completely appreciate the choice to use the current templates as opposed to the rather massive Rayman 1 template, as I mentioned in another talk page, I still think the current set-up is inefficient. I propose we have a template a bit like this for level articles, that way, we avoid the bloatedness, but still have a more efficient setup:

--  01:01, 7 June 2014 (CEST)

Autocollapse and Wikipedia templates

I've been snooping around, and from comparing our MediaWiki:Common.js to Wikipedia's, it seems we ought to have autocollapsing capabilities in Nav templates, we've not been able to manage getting them in yet. Any ideas?

Another item I'd like to mention is how our are navboxes currently like to make, there's a pretty large amount of code to work with, and I believe there ought to be some more accessible alternative. I don't have the power to implement Wikipedia's Navboxes, but I believe they do have some manner of instruction on how to do so, should an admin believe these templates to be feasible. While I don't really mind our current lot, I'd much prefer their Navbox templates to help in creation.

(Irrelevant, but if I'm going to note usability, I guess I ought to make another nudge about the improved editor --  23:14, 27 April 2014 (CEST)

The autocollapse works for me, could it be a browser issue? As for navboxes we don't have many of them so I don't see this as a priority. The improved editor is very interesting though. —    15:24, 28 April 2014 (CEST)
Hmm, weird, the templates are still expanded even in the presence of one or more other collapsing templates, I tried checking in the Steam browser, it came up the same. I'll see if I can check on other browsers and confirm. Just to clarify in case, collapsing works, it's getting them to automatically collapse when there's more than one navbox that is the issue. --  18:29, 28 April 2014 (CEST)
I'm not convinced it's a good idea to have such a behaviour. Why not add a parameter to the template that specifies whether it should be collapsed on page load, so that we have absolute control over it on every page? —    19:06, 28 April 2014 (CEST)
Hmm, so we can make it collapse on the pages we wish, and expanded on others? That seems like a reasonable idea. I'm not quite sure how to implement such a feature though, but I'll check things up. --  19:08, 28 April 2014 (CEST)
Return to "Rayman 1" page.