Talk: Startups

Rearrange?

It doesn't make sense to have games arranged in alphabetical order on glitches, endings and cameos, yet have games organized by order of release on startups. There needs to be a consistent style here in terms of how we organize the games. Either all these pages are organized in alphabetical order or by date of release, no in-betweens.

I know it would be more sensible to just organize this page by alphabetical order, but I disagree with the arrangement of all these other pages mentioned. Our relatively small community of active users regularly forget to add on to these pages. As time goes by, it becomes difficult to find where a user last left off. If a user wants to update the endings page, for example, they would have to go search through the list alphabetically to see where the last game had an update. When organizing by date, however, a user only has to look at the bottom of a page to add on where other users left off quickly, saving the time wasted having to search for each individual game to make sure it is on the list. By organizing the page by date, it would be a lot easier to keep it up to date.

Though whoever went through all the trouble of putting each game into order of the alphabet, I think it would be best to put the page back in order of the way it normally was: organized by date of release. Keeping this Wiki up to date is important, and arranging games by alphabetical order might discourage editors from helping out these four component pages easily by regularly updating it, as we all seem to be forgetting to do.   Random-storykeeper 05:35, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

We even can look at the history of the page. Fault Liner 10:23, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. As far as I know, there are no advantages to having the stuff in order by date of release. If it is in alphabetical order, you just go to the game you want to view, and then, if you see it has missing information, you edit it. If it is in order of date, you have to know the date of release in relation to other games, or you have to look it up, or you have to just scroll down and try to find it. If there are any advantages to having it in order of release, then please tell me. Otherwise, I think we should have everything in alphabetical order. NTPYTO ^Gb_Sp^R4

16:53, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. You say that we should put the other pages back the way they were. I got news for you. They were in random order. Not organized alphabetically or in order of date. I know, I'm the one who put everything in alphabetical order. NTPYTO ^Gb_Sp^R4

16:56, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are a few things to sort out here. First, it seems as though you didn't bother to read everything that was put up for discussion, as I did provide an explanation as to why organizing the pages by date of release can be advantageous. The reason is because of a concern: users here are mostly caught up in maintaining other parts of the Wiki that they neglect these pages. Therefore, when we come back to edit these pages, we usually take a look at them and assume they are up to date. For example, if I want to keep the endings page up to date, I would have to go through trial and error, looking up each game individually on the list to see if it is on there before I can finally add it. If everything was in order of release date, however, all it takes it looking at the bottom of the page to check what the last game added was, then adding on to it from there.

Now I definitely see the point in organizing the games by alphabetical order, if the page was regularly kept up to date, which it is not. Easier in terms of navigation, but more difficult to update. I'd be satisfied if a few users stepped forward and helped maintain these pages, as we need users on watch to monitor them.

To be honest, it's not that I totally disagree. I see your point. We need consistency with these pages though, as they are a bulk of trouble that take time to maintain and keep up to date. Both ways could work. All I'm saying now is that we choose alphabetical order or date of release, and don't go flopping around in between. Alternatively, we could just delete these pages, as endings is practically a duplicate of the "Endings" section on each individual page with a fancy introduction. Well, we do need to make some major modifications that could be up for discussion.

And Not the person you're thinking of, please be careful when throwing knives. The point is that these pages were trying to follow the order of date by release. Of course, with multiple users constantly editing them, that is not always the case. Saying they were in order of date of release was a generalization. I know, at some point, the glitches page was out of order and I recall going through all the trouble of organizing it by date, just as you did putting everything in alphabetical order.   Random-storykeeper 06:42, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Startup GIFs

It might be interesting to make GIFs out of all the animated startups. Are the ones I put up on the page too huge? I can resize them without freezing the image if necessary.   Random-storykeeper 07:52, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Not logged in

Should I include the "logged in" banner at the top of the screen for future startups? If I don't, I cut off a part of the background (which makes it look unbalanced, but...).   Random-storykeeper 23:05, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks fine with the banner. -- Ayernam 01:42, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Me to. --Talk to NOBODY   02:01, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Split

I'm thinking the sections should be split into subpages according to year, with the latest year that has a game release displaying on this page. This page has a lot of images, and the loading time for all images to display is too slow. (As I'm writing this message, the images are still loading on the article.) This might not be such a good thing, considering images make up the bulk of the article.

If the sections were to be split, the tables would be uncollapsed (obviously), and a navbox could be added to make navigation between all the years easier. Just a thought. (The page also loaded the Droplets startup image at the very bottom of the page, to the bottom left. Weird.)   Random-storykeeper 07:28, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. It takes around 10 seconds for me to actually scroll the page down. --Talk to NOBODY   15:29, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the article, especially considering that this page will only continue to increase in size as more games are released. -- Ayernam 18:29, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Startup gifs guidelines

Just some things to keep in mind next time when uploading GIFs:

• Please log out of your account to attain a more "neutral" setting or crop the banner out if possible.
• Before uploading to the wiki, please resize them so they are 325 pixels wide or less. (325 to prevent the table from disaligning; big GIFs can take longer to load and are a bit too protruding.)

I have resized some of the newly added GIFs since DynamicImages is supposed to allow the GIFs to run even when resized. It doesn't seem to be working at the moment, although I'm not sure if it's because the page's loading time is too slow or because there's too many GIFs on the page. The script appeared to work fine in the sandbox last I checked.   Random-storykeeper 07:38, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Startup descriptons

• Need a startup description for Bomb Chicken