Talk:List of NES games/proposal

Suggestion for an updated table layout:

Changes: only one table instead of several ones, and no fixed width for the columns (which should also greatly decrease the page size) - instead, the whole table is rendered at the entire available width.

What still should be checked would be whether the [edit] links for the sections work nicely with this or not... -- Schnee 01:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like what you suggested for the table layout, but the problem lies in what you stated about edits. When I created the table layout, it was for that reason that I did individual tables. I'm new at the Wikipedia thing, so I'm not sure how special cases are handled under the TOC in those circumstances. As for the fixed width, if you could get rid of it and still maintain the page the way it is, that would be awesome. I put that in there because there was more than one table, and the browser would have forced them to be different lengths due to different lengths of the "longest" game title in each table. By the way, I'll be adding the years tonight. -- TravelingDude 02:07, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the TOC code, either; it was only added this summer, but it seems to be mostly optimized for flowing text / headlines. As far as the table width is concerned, though, I think that simply setting all the tables to 100% and setting the column widths to a specific percentage as well would suffice to keep a consistent layout; what's more, I also think it's unnecessary to repeat the width information in each table row, anyway, so trimming down the page size could be easily done no matter what. However, that's not the only thing I don't like about the fixed widths: on higher screen resolutions (I use 1280x960, and know people who go up to 2048x1536 [on big monitors, yes]), it simply won't look nice anymore - and the same holds true for low resolutions like 640x480, too.


 * So, all in all, I'll just test how the [edit] links work when you've got one combined table; if it works, fine, if it doesn't, I'd suggest individual tables with relative widths instead of fixed ones. Sound good? -- Schnee 16:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, done (see List of NES games/Temp). What do you think? It looks fine to me; the [edit] links are formatted the same way as they are on the current page. -- Schnee 16:38, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks great! So...uh....are you going to do the combining?  ;) -- TravelingDude 16:54, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Just did. :) If you have no objections, I'll just copy the Temp page to the real page. -- Schnee 17:02, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks great! I'll add some more years as soon as I have an opportunity to.  I should be able to fill in most if not all of the missing mfg's too.  We should probably do the same for the SNES game table too in the future! -- TravelingDude 04:10, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, that could be done, too. -- Schnee 11:45, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Since I think the games should be split up on whether or not they went to the Famicom or the NES, this format should be used in both said lists. WhisperToMe 06:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)