Where does Star Fox DS belong on the list. I know there is an "Unreleased Games" category, but I figured that was for games that never saw release, not for games that are in production. Maybe we should change it to "Cancelled Games"? -- VederJuda 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds OK. Thunderbrand 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone should fix the template. It is missing a lot of info, like unreleased and stuff. --yadayada, unsigned comment: 24.218.198.220
Yeah, but the new template guidelines stated: "Exclude unreleased games and games never released in English unless the series as a whole was never released in English. If space is at a premium, also exclude unreleased, upcoming games. If an unreleased game is particularly noteworthy (noteworthy as in Duke Nukem Forever noteworthy, not Foo-Raider-4-is-the-much-anticipated-next-game-in-the-Foo-Raider-series noteworthy), make sure to include it." So, really, I think we should only add in Star Fox 2, if that's even noteworthy enough. Blinkstale 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it. Does it look OK?-- AgreeneyedFox 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it has the Games and Characters But that's not enough. It should have links to the Arwing page, Land Master, Blue Marine, Wolven, OR make a "Ships in Star-fox universe page" which links to all the ships (and includes some info on the ships in Command). There should also be a link in this template to the "Planets in Star fox" and other Star Fox articals right now its just Games and Characters, which isn't good enough.
Well My opinion.
(I've added Planets and Locations already, still think there should be something about ships) • Planets and Locations
- The template doesn't need to link to every single article in Category:Star Fox. Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes has more on what the video game project has agreed upon for the appearance of navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well its so much handier to browse
User:R.J.Mackay
Based on the actual game packages for this entire series, the title seems to NOT include a space. So why are we calling these games "Star Fox" with a space in the middle that does not appear to be there in the primary source? -- Bishop2 ( talk) 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It seem to me that linking to characters within a list is useful for navigation, despite not being a separate article. Should this template link to all the main characters? The space is not being used for anything else. RP9 ( talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- We already link to the list. We don't need to link to sections. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Linking to the sections makes it that much easier to navigate and does not tend to suggest at first glance that there is only one character.
RP9 (
talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we link every character mentioned in the list, then? (even though that's totally indiscriminate and pointless). Clicking Falco Lombardi may be easier, but it's only easy in that it saves two seconds. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It may only take two seconds if you already know it is on the list and you know that it would be on a list. Two things a newcomer may not know. Currently, it seems, most templates specifically avoid linking to sections. It does not seem 'pointless' to do this though. I was thinking that it might be more clear to have an overview of some or even all the characters from the navbox. But I guess it just depends on whether you think of navboxs as navigating articles or about navigating related information. Do you think that most readers assume that the characters are on a list that is liked as "Characters" when they can't find character articles or do not know what they are called? My main concern is that this may be confusing or just not helpful. RP9 ( talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we link every character mentioned in the list, then? (even though that's totally indiscriminate and pointless). Clicking Falco Lombardi may be easier, but it's only easy in that it saves two seconds. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Linking to the sections makes it that much easier to navigate and does not tend to suggest at first glance that there is only one character.
RP9 (
talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add Falco to the list. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 | Video games: Nintendo Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Where does Star Fox DS belong on the list. I know there is an "Unreleased Games" category, but I figured that was for games that never saw release, not for games that are in production. Maybe we should change it to "Cancelled Games"? -- VederJuda 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds OK. Thunderbrand 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone should fix the template. It is missing a lot of info, like unreleased and stuff. --yadayada, unsigned comment: 24.218.198.220
Yeah, but the new template guidelines stated: "Exclude unreleased games and games never released in English unless the series as a whole was never released in English. If space is at a premium, also exclude unreleased, upcoming games. If an unreleased game is particularly noteworthy (noteworthy as in Duke Nukem Forever noteworthy, not Foo-Raider-4-is-the-much-anticipated-next-game-in-the-Foo-Raider-series noteworthy), make sure to include it." So, really, I think we should only add in Star Fox 2, if that's even noteworthy enough. Blinkstale 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it. Does it look OK?-- AgreeneyedFox 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it has the Games and Characters But that's not enough. It should have links to the Arwing page, Land Master, Blue Marine, Wolven, OR make a "Ships in Star-fox universe page" which links to all the ships (and includes some info on the ships in Command). There should also be a link in this template to the "Planets in Star fox" and other Star Fox articals right now its just Games and Characters, which isn't good enough.
Well My opinion.
(I've added Planets and Locations already, still think there should be something about ships) • Planets and Locations
- The template doesn't need to link to every single article in Category:Star Fox. Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes has more on what the video game project has agreed upon for the appearance of navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well its so much handier to browse
User:R.J.Mackay
Based on the actual game packages for this entire series, the title seems to NOT include a space. So why are we calling these games "Star Fox" with a space in the middle that does not appear to be there in the primary source? -- Bishop2 ( talk) 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It seem to me that linking to characters within a list is useful for navigation, despite not being a separate article. Should this template link to all the main characters? The space is not being used for anything else. RP9 ( talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- We already link to the list. We don't need to link to sections. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Linking to the sections makes it that much easier to navigate and does not tend to suggest at first glance that there is only one character.
RP9 (
talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we link every character mentioned in the list, then? (even though that's totally indiscriminate and pointless). Clicking Falco Lombardi may be easier, but it's only easy in that it saves two seconds. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It may only take two seconds if you already know it is on the list and you know that it would be on a list. Two things a newcomer may not know. Currently, it seems, most templates specifically avoid linking to sections. It does not seem 'pointless' to do this though. I was thinking that it might be more clear to have an overview of some or even all the characters from the navbox. But I guess it just depends on whether you think of navboxs as navigating articles or about navigating related information. Do you think that most readers assume that the characters are on a list that is liked as "Characters" when they can't find character articles or do not know what they are called? My main concern is that this may be confusing or just not helpful. RP9 ( talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we link every character mentioned in the list, then? (even though that's totally indiscriminate and pointless). Clicking Falco Lombardi may be easier, but it's only easy in that it saves two seconds. -
The New Age Retro Hippie
used Ruler!
Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Linking to the sections makes it that much easier to navigate and does not tend to suggest at first glance that there is only one character.
RP9 (
talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add Falco to the list. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)