Difference between revisions of "User talk:Qwerty/Sandbox/Weapon Page"

Latest revision as of 13:34, 28 August 2008

IVd or wateburr

• Don't center the gallery pics, it looks funny. :/ --Beatrixkiddo 06:04, 2 August 2007 (BST)

• I think the board ingredients should be vertical, looks a little confusing as it is. But I dunno if that'd look much better.

Actually, looking at some other weapon pages like Blackbull, I like this setup a lot. I don't really think we need a new template, just need to put it on all weapon pages. But whatever, if we decide on a new template, I'll go with it and help out. Saiffy 00:13, 1 August 2007 (BST)

• Yeah, I'm not fond of this redesign either. In my opinion it would be better to modify the existing weapon and synth board templates so that they have a uniform appearance/design. What I like about the existing weapons template is that it automatically fills in some of the information based on the other values.
  
  It should be possible to reorganize the existing templates so that they are easier to read, while retaining their general appearance. F Gattaca 00:23, 1 August 2007 (BST)

• Personally, I think that table is ugly and confusing. Not only does the table break frequently (might not for other, I don't know), but there's just too many things all jumbled together, and too much blank space in places where it isn't needed. There's like three inches of blank space on my screen between "PP:" and the actual value of the PP. Just looks bad to me, I don't know. I think something like what I have here is just much more straightforward and orderly, though I guess a rearrangement of the current table may fix my problems with it. --Qwerty 00:46, 1 August 2007 (BST)
• The old template is broken in parts, for a start, and no-one here seems to have the knowhow to fix it. It's also somewhat complex and a pain on the eye - sites like PSOW can manage a similar layout but I don't think it's suitable for a wiki. I like this new design, it's simpler and it seems to... work with the Wiki layout, I suppose, rather than against it (I think the old layout looks horribly forced and out-of-place); but a couple of points:
  • Board stats table should be vertical. I recommend a 3x2 layout, with Ingredient 1 & 2 on the first row, 3 & 4 on the second, and the Synth Time and Base Rate on the third.
  • The gallery function is a nice way of getting multiple images of weapons. I recommend one image at the right of the page, and any other images can go in a gallery at the bottom.
  • Minor, but colour code the Rarity part of the Stats table to match the rank, using the colour values given on the Manual of Style page.
  • A grinding table, showing the stats at various grinding stages wouldn't go amiss, either. - Mewn 01:04, 1 August 2007 (BST)
    • I see. Either way, this design looks ... all over the place to me, too exploded, too random. I think I have an alternate proposal for weapon page design, if the original templates are too broken to work with. I'll try demonstrating it in my personal sandbox and make a notification about it when I'm finished. F Gattaca 01:46, 1 August 2007 (BST)
      • It's done; here's my own proposal for the weapon page redesign. Check out the talk page for some explanations for the design. F Gattaca 05:35, 1 August 2007 (BST)
        • Ok, a few things to comment on:
          • It's a small page, so it could afford to have __NOTOC__ thrown in. Table of Contents is silly on such a small page.
          • Things like JP name and sellback prices are extraneous and trivial. Frankly speaking, I don't think anyone cares about that.
          • We should all be able to agree that weapon stats are the focus of the page, and I do not like them shoved off out of the way on the right-hand side of the screen. I don't care if that's how Wikipedia does it, this isn't Wikipedia, and I don't like it.
          • ATA never increases with grinding on any weapon, so there's no point to have that on the grinding table.
          • I think availability (i.e. drops for most weapons/boards) is much more clearly expressed in tabular form. That makes it much easier for quick reference.
          • Anyway, just my two cents. I won't deny my format could use more work and refining, but I still think it is more straightforward and accessible than your template. Then again, I might be a little biased. --Qwerty 06:01, 1 August 2007 (BST)
            • JP names may hold interest to some PSUPedia readers, and they do make it easier to crossreference Japanese/English sites (in my opinion). However, the buy and sell price of weapons and other items do most defnitely have an audience, and are only "extraneous and trivial" to a certain subset of players (the high-level rich kids). The buy/sell values are valuable knowledge to newer players, or players who are starting new characters and can't afford to twink with money from their main, nor have a partner machine that can just synth the items in question. In addition they provide an easy reference for pricing such weapons in player shops.
              
              I've seen plenty of both, and I still experience it myself. Why prevent them from benefiting from that information? Sure, you can argue that they can simply go look at the shops themselves to see the prices, but they can also do that for many of the stats we're listing, so the argument would be self-defeating.
              
              You've also voiced the "unnecessary" argument concerning prices over weapons category tables and that's what won out there. Even then, however, I saw some protest over the removal of buy/sell values. If a majority agrees to do the same to individual weapons articles, which naturally should have more detailed information than the categories, then I'm pretty sure that information won't exist on PSUPedia at all ... and that seems highly counterproductive to me. We're doing this to give people quick and easy access to PSU information. What's the point in pushing information like that out the window? That's another reason why I made a counterproposal to your weapons page redesign.
              
              If ATA never increases with weapon grinds, that can be easily removed from the table. On that note, perhaps using a Maggac as an example was a bad idea since it doesn't require a table of monster drops (I like Maggacs too much). I'll have to make a second example using a different weapon. I strongly disagree that my format "shoves info out of the way" and is less accessible (if Wikipedia and most other Wikis do it that way, then people will naturally look for that concise infobox on other wikis), but I suppose it'll be up to third parties to decide that. F Gattaca 06:25, 1 August 2007 (BST)
              • The page looks much nicer with no Table of Contents, things seem to line up much better. I still do not like the main statistical information off to the side, but my opinion is by no means law. Now that I went and looked at things again, you're probably right that some pricing information should be included. Everyone could just look at Meseta, but I had forgotten that the pricing data there is incomplete, and I'll admit it is out of the way for someone to look to find the information. JP name, however, I still think is extraneous, considering this is an English-language wiki, and very few of our users can even read Japanese. I just don't see how listing it on the page is useful to anyone. At any rate, with all that in mind, I made a fourth variation of my style, this time using actual weapon data and pictures, which I think does the template a bit more justice. I realized I had plenty of room to include pricing data without detracting from the general style, so I went ahead and threw it in. Anyway, now all that remains is further discussion, and then for others to decide which of the two templates they prefer. I may not like the infobox on the right-hand side, but that ultimately isn't my decision, and I'll go along with whichever is preferred by the majority. If nothing else, the sooner we get rid of the ugly and varied weapon pages currently in place and get some sort of standardization going, the better. --Qwerty 07:06, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                • On that note, I've created a version of my proposal with drop tables.
                  
                  With regards to the inclusion of JP names, the PSUPedia freely links to its Japanese counterparts, both in the sidebar and at the bottom of more than a few pages. Having JP names available as a comparison for the names of items we know them by could prove useful when someone's browsing the Japanese side of PSU. If PSUPedia didn't link to Japanese sites as thoroughly as it does, I would agree that the JP names aren't as needed, but ...
                  
                  I don't know if it's possible to "flip" my version so that the infobox is to the left and the tables are to the right. If enough people like my proposal but would prefer to see it mirrored that way, I could take a crack at it.
                  
                  Your fourth design looks better from the first, but the randomly placed and sized tables and the dark colors you've chosen still don't work for me ... F Gattaca 07:40, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                  • I think something like Google's translation tool is far more helpful in comparing the information than the simple inclusion of the JP name, but that's really a minor issue anyway. Anyway, I'm not too keen on all the blank space in your tables, but I guess that is a preference thing. Concerning my template thing, I know next to nothing about aligning and sizing tables, and I am notoriously bad at choosing colors for anything, so all that is certainly still subject to change. --Qwerty 07:53, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                  • Hmm.. both Qwerty's and Gattaca's layouts are good, in my opinion. They're both quite easy to read and Gattaca's makes good use of the space available. Still, I don't quite like all the blank space in the tables, and while it's a difficult decision, Qwerty's compact layout just pips Gattaca's layout for me. But let's wait and see what the others say, they're both good and either could be used really. - Mewn 11:08, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                    • I really like Gattaca's Yasminakov section redesign as well as Qwerty's número cuatro. My main worry with Qwerty's fourth example, however, is that certain tables (the drop table, specifically) could get pretty big compared to the others and would just look out-of-place to me. I kind of have that issue with the size of the pricing table next to the grinding table. But the way the stats and drop tables line up looks ace. Gattaca's example solves this possible problem, though, by each table being in its own section, so the height of one table won't make an adjacent table look off. Now, for a little personal preference, in Gattaca's ingredients section, I think it would look better if the quantity of each item were displayed like this: Im-photon x10 as opposed to 10 Im-photons. That's just me, though.  ;) EspioKaos 15:31, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                      • I agree, it would look better as "item x#" rather than "# items" since it avoids plural confusion. I'll edit my design to reflect that. F Gattaca 16:58, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                      • I moved the pricing table up in line with the other tables that contain gray-ish cells, I think that looks better. Now, the only table on this format that would ever vary in size would be the drops table (the grinding table will grow horizontally as values are filled in, but that is of no concern). Now, keep in mind that almost all items do not have more than 2 or 3 drop locations, even S-Ranks. Halarod is the only exception that comes to mind, which drops on practically every Neudaiz boss and from Jarbas. Consequently, I don't see this being a problem at all on the vast majority of weapon pages. However, if it is a concern to some, the table could easily be align-right'd on the same line as the grinding table, or placed on the line below. I may go ahead and do slight variations each way to see how that looks. --Qwerty 19:43, 1 August 2007 (BST)
                        • Having the drop table right-aligned looks good, I think, except for the empty space between it and the grind table. This could be fixed by adding more info to the drop table. For example, instead of having the monster and mission in the same heading, those could be split in two. Maybe the type of drop (enemy, box or boss) could be added in. Of course, we don't need to add too much as it will become cluttered if we do. One other thing, on the synth ingredients table, certain cell titles could be shortened so that they don't spill over into a second line, thus reducing the size of that table to possibly match the others. I'll see if I can make an example of this. EspioKaos 01:30, 2 August 2007 (BST)
  • Here's my example. EspioKaos 01:39, 2 August 2007 (BST)
    • The shortened cell names are fine. I didn't have any issue with it taking up two lines, but I suppose that all depends on screen resolution. Concerning the drop table, I really like it the way it currently is, with the simplicity of only three columns. For the white space between the grinding and drop tabels, I agree that it is unsightly, though keep in mind that the grind table will take up more space when filled in with values. Now, if only there were a way to make the drop table sit just to the right of the grind table without causing the grind table to seem unaligned. Let me experiment with a few more things, check back for some more variations, maybe. --Qwerty 05:02, 2 August 2007 (BST)
      • Heh, yeah I guess my additions to the drop table are a little excessive, so we can do without them. XD And I see what you mean about the grind table. It does spread out nicely when filled in. EspioKaos 04:39, 3 August 2007 (BST)
      • Out of all the designs based on Qwerty's proposal I prefer EpisoKaos' variant the most.
        
        By the way, just for future reference in case opinions are tallied on what design is eventually picked as the standard, Saffy left a comment about my design at the Maggac example page. F Gattaca 22:04, 2 August 2007 (BST)

New Style

Building upon the suggestions of Mewn, I made a third variation. This variation eliminates the subheadings in favor of titled tables, and fills in some blank spaces. I put the tables themselves within a table to get them to line up real nice. In theory, the Grinding Information table could be stuck on the same line as the other three tables, but I think that would look too cluttered. Alternatively, Drop Information could be moved down a line and set before the Grinding table. Furthermore, the Gallery could be aligned directly to the left of the Grinding table, but I think that would look odd. Comments? --Qwerty 02:44, 1 August 2007 (BST)

• I like the third's board and drop info, with the first's item stats and item description layout. :S --Beatrixkiddo 04:21, 1 August 2007 (BST)
• Could you link this third version to the discussion here? Now that I've got some free time on my hands, I figured I could start working through the weapon pages and standardizing them. Thing is, I don't which standard has been voted best. Trooper1023 14:41, 28 October 2007 (CDT)
  • This entire discussion is old and outdated. Use this page for the most up to date weapon page style. Also, see the talk page for some more recent discussion. --Qwerty 14:54, 28 October 2007 (CDT)