Talk:Langston's Destination Challenges

Please vote to help decide if trick food cards should also be shown on this page

Since we're going round-and-round with other reasons at this point, please just vote why you think trick food PV cards should (or shouldn't) also be shown on the page. (It's not our convention to use a link to navigate to a card that hasn't directly been shown, so let's just consistently follow how other articles currently handle the cards.) --FeralKitty (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It goes beyond the intended topic of the article, and it's also hand-holding. If you set the precedent here, I can't see where a line would be to stop other articles from being cluttered up with incidental (non-topic) PV card images, e.g., a monkeynut tree PV card on the Sarsgorilla article, to "help" people meet that species' visit requirements. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PV images?

Do you think we should have PV images for the accessorized pinatas in this list? –xenocidic (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the PVCs, but what do you think is the best way to list them? Chart form with small images or image links? --ImaTestWentBad 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention something. I think that when you scan a PVC the pinata forgets the tricks it may have learned when captured. So if this is true, would it worth the trouble to make them? I still think it would be, but let me know what you all think. --ImaTestWentBad 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the tricks are an issue, but it's still faster to scan a varianted image with accessories, and merely teach it a trick, rather than buying/scanning a pinata, varianting it and/or loading it up with certain accessories, and then training it. I'd go with the chart form with small images. Although you generally don't want too many images on a page for various reasons, I think it's worth doing for this article.

The other change I'd suggest for this page, is to list the accessory that's unlocked for completing a country's challenges. --FeralKitty (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's funny that you just wrote that while I was adding the accessories. I thought about it while I was adding links to the respected pinatas, so it's already done. Now to add some images! --ImaTestWentBad 07:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming the challenges PVCs.

I know this question has already been answered by FK, but I can't seem to remember where the original question was asked. When naming these cards for the challenges, I would use the following format: PinataName-TroubleInParadise-Challenges-Region#country-PV.jpg? or should I omit one of those specifics. I don't want to have an outrageously long file name. Another question would be where do I place the [[Category:Piñata Vision image]] link by hand in the upload file wizard page? This will be my first PVCs with pinatas in them and I want them to also be in the gallery of pinata images. Do I just put it in the summary? I am confused by this simple little thing.--ImaTestWentBad 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with a short name, e.g., Lemmoning-TroubleInParadise-Russia-PV.jpg since I believe the species-country combination is unique. As for the upload, if you use the wizard, you don't have to add the category tag, as the wizard adds it for you. Click on the upload file link, and the wizard is at the top of the page. Answer the questions by clicking on the right response:

• Which video game is this media from? - Click show next to Trouble in Paradise.
• Is this a Piñata Vision image? - Click show next to Yes.
• What is the subject of the media? - Click "A species of pinata" or "A variant of pinata" as appropriate.

A partially-filled-in form will be created. Fill in the description, e.g., "A green Lemmoning with weather girl wig and bling teeth. Needs to learn one trick." --FeralKitty (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerns?

I posted some tables on this page but my concern is about how much I shrunk up the TOC for easy access. Shall I put back the sub-headers? It looks silly since there is already a centered name on each table. Maybe I should remove the name? --ImaTestWentBad 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea to put back the sub-headings, making it easier to navigate to them, as you mention. It's also a nice visual break between the list of unlocked accessories/items and the table that follows. (Headings also serve as anchors, if we needed to link from another article to a specific country.) If you think it looks better without a table caption, go for it. Table captions aren't required.

Thanks for all your hard work on this article! --FeralKitty (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This article looks great! Good thing the elite chocs are almost gone, because this will make it a cinch to finish up this aspect of the game (yes, I know it's not strictly necessary).

There was discussion above about the tricks that are necessary to send the pinata. I suggest including a second PV card for whatever item will teach the pinata a trick. If you're right there scanning a PV card for the pinata and all you have to do is move the camera over to the other part of the screen paper to instantly have what you need for the trick, that's easier than calling Bart or whatever. Just my 2 cents. Lymaniii 22:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hummm...Very interesting idea! Especially since I already made those cards for Bart's page! But do you think it would clutter up the nice clean page? I suppose if the next 2 columns were 100px sized also, then it would still look uniform. Only though, not all the pinatas need to learn tricks. I will test it in the future and see how it looks. It would be easier to get those achievements fast!!! --ImaTestWentBad 22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't clutter up the tables with additional columns, especially since the columns wouldn't be applicable for most rows, as ImaTestWentBad mentions. Also, it would stretch the screen past 600px. If you had to add cards for tricks, I'd rather see them stacked vertically in the existing column.

IMO, I think we're merely complicating a simple article, by trying to fit too much into it. I think it's good to have a balanced article that covers what the majority of people need it to answer. Cramming more in just takes up real estate that most people have to gloss over/scroll past to hopefully find the details they're trying to discover, and that's not a good thing, because enough information gets overlooked as is. --FeralKitty (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I though it looked awful in chart/table form. Tried to get it to look good but no dice. It was a great idea though :)...Also, I was thinking that the tricks are just a mere click away. Since the species link is included in every challenge, I don't think I will include them. Now I only need the regular pinatas, without accessories, to complete. --ImaTestWentBad 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a way to help without cluttering the page is to link the word "trick" each time directly to a PV image for what will teach the trick. In terms of "what the majority of people need" the article to answer, I think we're only dealing with our subjective opinions on that and my opinion is that most people would rather have PV cards to make it easy. The initial purpose of the article seemed more as a reference, but without much by way of clear benefit to someone working through the challenges. You might want to know which challenges will give you a particular accessory, but you still have to do them roughly in order and you have all the info for the challenge at the point that the option is available in the game itself. Now, on the other hand, imatest has made it a much more useful page by giving the actual PV card necessary to finish the challenges in short order, and I think that is far more useful and is the new primary purpose of the page. Lymaniii 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out how I could do that, but I kinda put it on the back burner persay until those others PVCs come through on VP.com. The other concern for me is having the word trick having a different link each time. I don't feel comfortable having one word as many links. Not that I am trying to be a copout or lazy...I just don't want to confuse anyone, having the word trick linked to the bread image. Possibly, in the future, I could expand the descriptions with the actual trick trigger word in (parentheses) and link from there? Perhaps? I know one thing. I will be happy when I am done this page :P But everything can be improved somehow Thank you for giving me all these great ideas, Doc! It makes my brain work :)--ImaTestWentBad 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ImaTest is exactly right with the issue of link consistency. People expect the link to take them to an article having to do with tricks. The same term shouldn't take people to the trick article, from the species articles, and differing PV images, from this article. We briefly looked at some sort of (pic) link for variant images that were not shown on an article, then went in a different direction. If anyone wants to try some ideas, go for it.

As for the purpose of the page, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Articles have a topic. This topic is challenges. The topic isn't how to teach species to do tricks. That information belongs on the species articles. If you want to provide a card for an item that teaches a species a trick, then that card should go on the species article. As ImaTest already mentioned, the species article is only a click away. I don't think the trick item cards belong on the species page and on this page too. Repeating the same information over and over in different articles does clutter up the articles, and it makes it hard to keep the repeated information consistent, when changes need to be made. That's why we try to avoid doing that. --FeralKitty (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How to teach a particular pinata a particular trick is directly relevant to completing Langston's challenges. To get to the trick PV card takes three clicks and frankly, until you both just pointed it out, I had no idea they were even there or that that is one way I could get to them. Redundancy can be a good thing, and considering the particularly problematic navigation (including search) in the current wiki, erring on the side of duplicate information--even if that means that the site isn't perfectly uniform--seems like a far better approach for increased usability. I'm not arguing for haphazard carelessness in page design, just against the idea that providing directly relevant information should be avoided because it is already provided elsewhere. This applies several other places I've seen contributed information deleted in the name of uniformity as well. Lymaniii 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Learning a trick may be required to complete the challenge, but repeating the species page details on this article isn't relevant to the article's scope/topic. Repeating every detail everywhere it applies isn't a viable solution. As I mentioned elsewhere, duplicating information everywhere a person might expect to find it has negative consequences -- you no longer have a single authoritative source with full details and answers, and duplicate copies of information become out-of-date, making some articles inconsistent, and the wiki less reliable as a reference. If people can't find it, perhaps the navigation should be "improved" instead. --FeralKitty (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested "repeating every detail everywhere it applies." What I'm referring to here are links to PV cards that I see no possible reason would ever need to change on a page where they directly apply and for a reason that I believe is primary among the people that would be visiting the page. Langston's challenges aren't going anywhere. This issue *is* improving the navigation so people can find what is already contained in the wiki. That's precisely the point! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymaniii (talk)

People have gotten to this page already. You want cards on the page so people don't have to look elsewhere for them. That's a convenience. Please don't label it as "improved navigation" to spare people from the possibility they might not be able to find them elsewhere. It's a trick. If they don't know what to feed it, they've got problems that site navigation isn't meant to address. We go so far to link to other articles for information, but is it necessary or appropriate to hold their hand so they know via this article that Ms. Green Lemmoning needs to eat a thistle OR a thistle seed, before Langston will send it to Russia? I'm not in favor of setting a precedent that other pages should follow (e.g., including seven different PV cards so people can scan pinatas for their Master Romancer award).

To be frank with you, when I go do a challenge, and Langston has told me the requirements, I look at the species page to see what the trick food is. Isn't that common sense? I wouldn't go to the challenge article to answer that. Also, no one has even brought up the fact that cards have limits, and users can only scan a card once? If that's an issue, we're not helping people, when they some of their pinatas need to eat the same trick food. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Convenience IS improved navigation. User experience is the bottom line! Calling it "holding people's hand" to give them what they want or need is political speak! You argue so emphatically and dogmatically for your opinion of what is clear, what is consistent, and what is a best practice for this site without conceding the slightest point or considering that perhaps a third or fourth party's opinion may be useful that it's no wonder people are reluctant to contribute here. It's plain silly that we've been discussing this trick link issue for so long, because ultimately it's not that big a deal. Unfortunately, after showing why it's relevant, why it would be helpful, why it wouldn't negatively impact the design, why repeated slippery slope arguments about how minor concessions will destroy the site (through increased traffic, horrible search results, through [insert false dilemma here]), why people aren't just lazy if they can't track down relevant information elsewhere, how it could be accomplished, etc. etc., you still refuse to consider that I may be right. I've responded to all your arguments if you care to re-read the conversation, and the fact that you are still dogmatically opposed to what is so completely trivial shows a problem with the site that may supersede any of the challenges you've mentioned. Do you know that some of Langston's challenges need the same food for a trick? I don't think so. Even if it's true, does that mean it's not helpful to provide the link anyway? No. You've argued against this tiny thing in so many ways and so vehemently you'd think I'd suggested something controversial. I'm finished pushing the issue. If you can step back and consider with a fresh look what a minor but real convenience this tiny suggestion would amount to, and that it would in no way necessarily lead to any of the "precedents" and disorder that you suggest (except perhaps the precedent that user experience may justify thinking outside the box on rare occasions), then I would be much more likely to pick up the baton and help you out elsewhere on this site.Lymaniii 11:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As for how the trick item could be linked, I like Imatest's suggestion to put the trick item as parenthetical text with a link to the card itself. Whether that's the best use of effort is debatable, but it sure seems consistent with the goal of improving the page for its explicit purpose/topic. Lymaniii 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ImaTest discussed that problem. If your trick item is an orange, and your "(orange)" link goes to a card in one place, but to the orange article in another place, how is that consistent? We can't make links behave inconsistently. Even if you make it (orange PV card), why isn't the PV card on the orange page (where you'd intuitively expect it to be), and the link takes them there? If we start doing (... PV card) links here, do we plan to consistently do them everywhere else people would expect them? If we're going to "fix" a problem, we should be thorough and correct about how we fix it, instead of being inconsistent in how we treat PV cards. Honestly, though, I frankly don't see this as a problem, and to hold someone's hand isn't a style we should adopt for articles. --FeralKitty (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm losing track of how many colons go in front of each comment. This is an interesting way to discuss things! Links are context sensitive on the web everywhere, all the time. There are plenty of ways to clarify any ambiguity. Some possibilities are putting note at the top of the page that explains, "When pinatas are required to know a trick to fulfill Langston's challenge, the item needed to teach them that trick is linked after the description." Or, the parenthetical link could be something like "(trick hint)". I'm sure I could come up with others. Point is, as far as the technical aspect of including a link with a clear purpose, clarity is achievable. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymaniii (talk)

This isn't the web in general, and article links aren't context-sensitive here. Links should be consistent within a site. Anytime you have to add a note to explain how to understand or use a page's links, it's a sign that something's probably wrong. Links are meant to be intuitive. People shouldn't start to wonder or doubt where the link might go. Clarity isn't an issue. What you're proposing is a "work-around" to the problem that the trick item cards aren't directly shown on this single page. Consistency is an issue, and you've got to think across the whole site, not within one page. We don't do this anywhere else, and you're talking about changing behavior on one page that doesn't (yet) apply to any other page. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The overall "issue" here is debatable, but clarity is precisely the issue we were discussing in the preceding paragraphs. When you are faced with the alternative of providing a useful feature that requires an accommodation (or workaround) or *not* providing that useful feature in the name of site preservation or fear of losing control elsewhere, you and I will probably always see differently as to what the right answer is. The present issue under discussion is whether a helpful link can be provided without confusing the user, and I believe the answer is clearly yes, through one of many methods either already discussed or that I could come up with if I thought there were any remote possibility of them being well-received.Lymaniii 11:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of page presentation, the relative value placed on presentation versus functionality under different circumstances is also sort of a subjective assessment. I'm very familiar with web design, but abysmally unfamiliar with wiki code, so while I can envision precisely how a page would serve all the purposes discussed while still being generally brief and nicely laid out, I have no idea how that would be coded. Short of doing some independent research, I'm happy to accept FeralKitty's recommendation for column width and thumbnail size, but it does seem a pity. FeralKitty, do you have access to the usage stats on the site? If only a minimal fraction of people are accessing the site via handhelds, that might be a good rationale to design the page for a typical monitor resolution and avoid giving accommodation that decreases usability for the majority in favor of a consistent appearance on handhelds. Lymaniii 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether something belongs on a page or not often doesn't have anything to do with layouts, so let's not muddy the waters there. If something belongs on a page, then we try to do a layout that works.

Jim's the person to ask for stats. I try to design pages that fit in 800x600. If Jim thinks there's not enough people that use the site at 800x600 and that we should cater to the majority of higher-resolution viewers, at the expense of the minimal fraction of people who would have to deal with scroll bars, that's his decision. Personally, I always felt it was a good design if pages worked for everyone. --FeralKitty (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A few lines up both Imatest and FeralKitty mentioned page layout as a consideration in whether to include a trick card. As you suggest, layout shouldn't be the primary consideration, but it is relevant.

Sometimes trying to please everyone just results in not pleasing anyone, so to speak. When I am forced to use a lower resolution, I manage with the requisite scroll bars well enough, but I suspect the vast majority of people are using resolutions over 800x600. Yes, that's standard res and most businesses use it to keep design predictable on their site, but most businesses don't keep a substantial column fixed on the left of every page (that's kind of old school... like frames), and really the fixed width at 800 doesn't work any better with 'lite' handheld browser versions than a larger res would (since those browsers don't typically display 800 wide). I would rather have the majority of users see everything in compact rows and columns, even if that imposes the minor accommodation for some to scroll down a bit to the correct line and then scroll right to see the relevant PV cards for what they're interested in as opposed to having a page that is extremely long because everything is in a single column one wide. Again, I think these things are subjective. It's pretty much moot anyway as the current page layout looks fantastic, but I think even the trick cards could be included within 600 px width (3 100px cards should fit within 600, no?). Regardless, I like Imatest's suggestion for the parenthetical link.Lymaniii 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with the default skin that mediawiki uses, you could probably take it up with them, or design a new skin for this site. --FeralKitty (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That was not a comment about the mediawiki skin. And I think I actually *would* enjoy designing a new skin for the site! But I'll focus on the projects I've already going for now. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymaniii (talk)

Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that I access the site frequently on my ipod touch, and it uses a full browser and looks just like a computer. I heart ipod touch. :-) Lymaniii 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to be into web design, and have a handheld, perhaps you could tell us how this specific article works? Do you think the page should be longer, by adding more images? How would you layout a design for your handheld that supported 1, 2, or 3 images per challenge? --FeralKitty (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the ipod uses a full Safari browser, and it looks better on my ipod than it does on my computer at 800x600 res. I don't know how to tell the res on the ipod, but it looks like 1024 wide. I used to use a palm tx, which was great at the time. It uses a scaled down wimpy version of a browser--probably the kind most cell phones use, so that would be the real test.Lymaniii 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)