Talk:Characters in The Wind Waker

Formatting change
I have to say I'm not too thrilled with the change made to the formatting of the article. Previously, every character's name was an individual header. The advantage of this was that every character was shown in the Table of Contents, allowing the user to go directly to it. Also, I think it was a clearer and more attractive format to browse through; to me, this text grouping looks a bit odd:
 * Link

Anyone else agree? I'd like to point out that, although it was me that wrote the basic layout of this page a year ago, I don't believe that makes it "mine" in any way, hence why I haven't simply reverted this revision. —Adam (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I agree on the usefulness on the user's ability to go to a name directly but you have to realize what the page is actually used for. If a user is looking for a specific character they will either A. type the name directly into the search function, or B. use the template that I introduced earlier. These pages are to inform of who is in each game; who the Main Characters are, who the Support Cast is, who lives in Outset, etc. With that in mind I altered the format while keeping as much as the previous layout as I could. Also did you see the size of the Table of Contents, it was huge. Now it is a much managable size. Knil 19:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)


 * "Also did you see the size of the Table of Contents, it was huge."
 * What? You're using the same argument I used against your "Everything from Twilight Princess" template. Yet you seem to think that the size of it is perfectly acceptable. That doesn't really make sense to me.
 * P.S. Level 1 headings ( = only one equals sign = ) are badbadbad. No wiki wants to use them. I'm not even sure why they're still in the software. They look terrible. --Ando (Talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)


 * This article has been viewed over 8,000 times, and I don't think any of us is in a position to judge what the page was being "used for" in every instance. I've reinstated the categorized navigational table of contents, as we are all agreed on its usefulness. Ando, what's wrong with L1 headings? Is it just 'cause they look crappy? (i've fixed that up a bit now) —Adam (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason that they're not commonly used (they do look better now, though, so I GUESS I'll let it slide :P). --Ando (Talk) 09:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Ando, when you learn a little more about wiki code you'll learn to realize the difference between a Table of Contents and a collapsible info template. Also, watch the use of that revert thing. All edits of the page have been reverted which include the character list template and the cleaning up of the character lists. It's not the universal solution that you might think it is. Knil 07:26, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Please don't assume to know how much I know about wiki coding. I know enough. :P Also, check this out:
 * [[Image:wtfcontents.png]]
 * So... no, don't see the difference. --Ando (Talk) 09:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)