Kaimi - Leblanc: "What? Where's Vegnagun?" Yuna: "Not here." Leblanc: "It must have fled in terror, knowing I was coming." TALK- Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 18:15, August 7, 2012 (UTC) (Best viewed with Square721 BT installed.)
I noticed that on all, or nearly all, pages that describe drespheres from Final Fantasy X-2 we list every single level along with its all stats. Personally, I think this is not a good idea and order: Strength—Magic—Defense—Magic Defense is rather strange as personally I prefer Strength—Defence—Magic—Magic Defence which I think most people find eye-appealing. As for levels, I think we should list only levels:1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 99. Also, I think the most eye-appealing order for listing stat changes is: HP—MP—Strength—Defence—Magic—Magic Defence—Agility—Evasion—Accuracy—Luck. I can handle the dressphere tables myself, but I need your opinion of what do you think.
The order of stats is like it is in the game, Strength first then Magic. Cropping some of the levels would make it smaller, but be careful with some of the...hmmm...nuances of the stats, because some stats first go up and then go down as you level up more, and this fluctuation may not be obvious if you don't have enough levels to display it, and it might just look like the stats for stuff like Speed are just random. Some stats also stagnate after certain level, so for those you wouldn't need to show any stats after certain point.
Looking at Thief, if you axe everything but the even ten levels, you lose the info that Thief's Speed peaks at LV91-97. But then it's only one point different so maybe it doesn't matter? But then again, person looking at a stats table to begin with might be looking something like exactly what is a Thief's highest Speed.
We could crop the table and then add a paragraph explaining the stat progression in prose where it can be mentioned that a Thief's Speed peaks at LV91-97?
Kaimi - "Do you know what it felt like to watch them die? Right before my eyes? It was the only thing we could do. It was the only choice we had. I gave in, I accepted, I believed." TALK- 18:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC) (Best viewed with Square721 BT installed.)
Well, that menu order sucks at this moment as horizontal order is not always the best and I like to have correlating stats next to each other rather (Strength—Defence, Magic—Magic Defence, Agility—Evasion, Accuracy—Luck) than remember which column is for which stat. Also, we could break the length of the table by putting each, I don't know, 10 levels, maybe 20, in each tab (although I'm more keen on 10 levels per tab).
Personally I think we should keep all the stats, maybe make the table collapsible or use tabs. Explaining the stats via text instead could also work, but it should be pretty comprehensive.
As an information database, we should keep the full tables. Because, really, if the info is there, it's best to have it for anyone who needs it. As the biggest and best of what we do, if someone needs to find what a level 37 Mascot's Speed is, it's out job to do our best to provide it. If we really need to break them up, we can use tabs to break them up into digestable blocks.
Catusesays at 02:14, August 14, 2012 (UTC) for great justice... "Never trust a man until you've run a mile in his shoes. Then you're a mile away from him and you've stolen his shoes."
Trouble is, Bluesey, as it is, it's ridiculously unwieldy. Perhaps something like this:
I disagree that it's enough to justify creating that many subpages over, which would double the whole shebang. Whether we use tabs or simply collapse them, it's best not to split up information more than is needed and in truth, most of them are fairly short without it.
Trainer and I think Mascot have unique stats for each girl so those articles have three tables of stats. That can be quite a strain. I don't think a subpage is a terrible idea, but collapsing would work too.
I'm going to say the exceptions shouldn't force the rule. That's why we have links to each heading. For the most part, the pages are relatively small excluding the tables in question, but the tables aren't big enough to justify an entire article unless we make one with all of them, which would be even more of a problem than things are now.
We could make a table that shows only every ten levels. By clicking on the 10th level (e.g. the "20" cell) it would expand and drop-down the next nine levels (e.g. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29) above the next 10th level (e.g. the 30 row). I'm not sure that's a good explanation. But it would require JavaScript. 79.69.196.154 01:20, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to say. I disagree on it, though. Most people simply wouldn't know how to use it. We need to keep things accessible. BluestarultorBSA 01:58, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
If we made the 10th rows background colours change to #DDDDDD when you put your cursor on them, and also explain at the top briefly how the table functions, then I don't necessarily see a problem. 79.69.202.171 14:21, August 15, 2012 (UTC)