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

Revision as of 05:25, 1 August 2007

• 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)

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)