Talk:Vehicles in GTA San Andreas: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 49: Line 49:




As long as you keep the vertical list alphabetical its great. The horizontal one is just retarded for this purpose. FOnt could be bigger for table heading though. --[[User:Chris|Chris]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (BST)
:As long as you keep the vertical list alphabetical its great. The horizontal one is just retarded for this purpose. Font could be bigger for table heading though. --[[User:Chris|Chris]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (BST)
 
Okay I've implemented the 2nd one of those tables. None of the vehicles have links yet, and the lists are not yet alphabeticalised. Also need to make sure all SAVehicles are actually listed and spelt correctly.[[User:Xenon|Xenon]] ([[User talk:Xenon|?]]) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Revision as of 21:59, 7 May 2007

Tables

You should be able to see that I have started a table for all the vehicles in San Andreas. There are a few things I'd like to talk over before we go any further.

Firstly, should we have separate tables (or parts of the table) for different types of vehicles, such as sports cars and industrial vehicles? It is a good way of making things easy to find. But if we do, the page will still be quite cluttered (compared to the simple list we had before).

Secondly, do we need a description field for every vehicle? I was thinking of a single sentence such as "The fastest sports car in the game, available when you get all-gold at Driving School". If we do not separate into types then we definitely need descriptions. Also bear in mind that

Thirdly, do we even need a table? We could just have a few lists for each type of vehicle - this is the simplest and tydiest suggestion, but means we can't have any thumbnails or description. But then again, do we even need those? This is meant to be a list of vehicles. But on the other hand, if all we want is an alphabetical list, that's what a Category is for.

So we have four main choices: 1) Lists sorted into types, 2) Tables in types, 4) Tables in types with descriptions, 3) Single table with descriptions

Any input you guys could give me would be appreciated - Xenon (?) 21:41, 7 May 2007 (BST)


IMO first of all we should definitely have categories, e.g. Bikes, Trucks, Sports Cars, Family Cars etc. Secondly, I don't think descriptions and thumbnails are particularly necessary, but I guess they would be useful to some, thumbnails more than descriptions anyway. A single long table though is a definite no-no.--Chris 21:45, 7 May 2007 (BST)
You'd rather have a table with no thumbnails or descriptions then? Howabout running the lists horizontally, with one cell for each type of vehicle - allows for easy finding of vehicles and takes up a lot less space. For example:
Sports Cars Banshee | Bullet | Cheetah | Comet | Hotknife | Hotring Racer | Infernus | Super GT | Turismo | ZR-350 | Euros

or

Sports Cars
  • Banshee
  • Bullet
  • Cheetah
  • Comet
  • Hotknife
  • Hotring Racer
  • Infernus
  • Super GT
  • Turismo
  • ZR 350
  • Euros

Xenon (?) 22:05, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Xenon (?) 22:05, 7 May 2007 (BST)


As long as you keep the vertical list alphabetical its great. The horizontal one is just retarded for this purpose. Font could be bigger for table heading though. --Chris 22:15, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Okay I've implemented the 2nd one of those tables. None of the vehicles have links yet, and the lists are not yet alphabeticalised. Also need to make sure all SAVehicles are actually listed and spelt correctly.Xenon (?) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (BST)