Template talk:SSB4-3DS stage table

this ain't gonna work folks

I have a pretty large monitor resolution and I have to scroll to see the entire table, and that's SUPER annoying. Time to come up with a new way to lay it out (again). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 12:14, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Miles undid the edits someone did, saying he didn't want them to break the symmetry, but then (ironically) broke the symmetry himself...that being said, the way it was before Miles stepped in was fine in my opinion. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 12:32, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

How's it look now? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 12:35, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Still a little too big. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 13:05, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

What are you doing? The layout was fine as it was. It's not practical to shrink the icons down to make this show on one (average-sized) screen, and I really don't understand why people keep making the bottom row non-symmetrical. Miles (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

It's irritating to have to scroll to see the entire table. Read anything on proper website etiquette, and it'll probably tell you to never make readers have to scroll sideways. I agree that the way you removed was weird looking, but having it left aligned is still a proper way to show it and it helps (at least partially) with the problem of removing the side scrollbar. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:28, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

...my monitor resolution is 1366x768 and I was having no trouble with horizontal stretch. Could it be a browser thing? Either way, still doesn't address my question about the bottom row. Miles (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

...and i quote: "I agree that the way you removed was weird looking, but having it left aligned is still a proper way to show it and it helps (at least partially) with the problem of removing the side scrollbar." Actually, left alignment is generally suggested by said website etiquette articles over center alignment. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:36, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

I'm not talking about the left- or center-alignment of the whole table. At all. I'm confused about the removal of the colspan=2 stuff which was implemented to make the bottom row not lopsided. Miles (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

That makes it completely asymmetrical. It's a 7-block wide table, with four of them filled with stages. That leaves the odd number 3 blank spaces, which functions better with left alignment rather than having it shifted either one block too far to the right or to the left. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:41, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

And that's why the colspan=2 elements were there in the previous version: so that we can basically cheat the bottom row into having 1.5 blocks empty on either side of the 4 that have stages, thereby centering them nicely. Miles (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

It still wasn't symmetrical though. Look on the left: the two boxes on the far left are squished tight against the images. On the right? Only one is. And, again, side scrollbar. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:49, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Hence why I think it might be a browser issue; I see the old revision like this on my end. The first column is a little too wide because of the Peach's Castle text not being shrunken yet, but the bottom row's alignment is fine. Miles (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

In that case, we probably should just see which revision looks better in kind of a majority thing. So far it seems like me, Aidan, and Nyargle see the left-aligned bottom row better, and you see the center-aligned bottom row fine. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 14:07, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Boy, I'm so late... Anyway, I got something to say on this matter; I might be a little biased because I'm the first guy who made that left-aligned bottom row before Miles messed it all up with his symmetry (look it up if you want to, I swear I ain't lying), but I think we should go back to the way it was. The left scrolling issue is EXACTLY why I did this and I had a feeling that I wasn't the only one, so I tried to fix it, and did! Of course, it doesn't make it look symmetrical, but that doesn't mean we should make it larger than the screen to make it so. If people are having problems looking at it because of how big it is, does it really deserve to be kept that way for the sake of symmetry? ~ So sayeth SG9000 ~ (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

(resent indent) I'm on the Firefox 40 at the moment, for what that's worth. Miles (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

For the record, I have OCD, so organization is kinda my thing. That being said, the way it's set to now annoys me a lot. Why the hell are the stags in the last row off to the left? They should at least be centered. Other than that, it's fine. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 14:49, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Both of them look bad to me; Nutta's is just slightly better. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Centered looks better IMO. Serpent∞King (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

How about turning this into a "fake-table" that automatically expands/contracts to fill whatever space is given? Something like this, though with additional coding to center everything. Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 17:12, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

I'm still not even 100% sure what people are finding wrong with the current layout, honestly. I feel like I'm not putting it together. Miles (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

The main issue is how wide it is, being noticeably more larger than the page itself on smaller monitors. ~ So sayeth SG9000 ~ (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

...are that many people using screens less than 1024x768??? Miles (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

I actually have a 1024x768 monitor and it does it. -.-' Also, I noticed that you said you have a 1366x768 monitor, so while it looks good on yours, it doesn't on smaller monitors and I honestly don't see the problem with a lack of symmetry if it means that the table is adapted to fit in a single screen, no matter the size of one's monitor. ~ So sayeth SG9000 ~ (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

That would be preferable. Nyargleblargle (y' · Contribs) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

I have a 1024x768 monitor and it's doing that to me, miles. I think it has something to do with Firefox- I use Google Chrome.

I would like to see Toomai's idea implemented. I'm not going to make a final decision until I've seen an example of some form though. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 22:36, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

How does the current revision look? Miles (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

...Well, this seems to have worked itself out. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 06:03, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

It looks perfect, thanks to the Duck Hunt stage. However, we're still gonna need to plan ahead about what we should do if another stage gets added as DLC, so we could avoid another situation like this... Oh wait... It's already happening on the Wii U version of this template? *sigh* Here we go again! -_-' ~ So sayeth SG9000 ~ (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2015 (EDT)