FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Need opinions on how to make the tables for a cleanup/expansion
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 July 2017 by JaydenKieran.

Hi everyone, a while ago I had set myself a goal to clean/expand every page in {{Equipment class}}

I had started on this already back then, for example at Adamant equipment, but I didn’t like that I couldn’t show the prices of the items anymore as this was incompatible with how I was formatting the tables. To solve this I have made a new template {{Equipment bonuses infotable}}, but this opens up multiple options to format those tables. So before I start again changing those pages I would like to know which format is best. I have a few options listed here so please vote on what you like most:

Weapons

User:CephHunter/Eqinfotable weapons options Personally I like w3 the most because it is more compact. InventionCephHunter talkSlayer 17:30, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

Armour

User:CephHunter/Eqinfotable armour options Here I like a4 the most. InventionCephHunter talkSlayer 17:30, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Support a4 and modified w4 - These look good - a compact way to present all relevant information. I think having three weapons tables - one for off-hand, one for main-hand, one for two-handed - would look best, as opposed to putting all into one table. These could still be grouped into a subsection on the relevant page. This would not affect the template design, just its usage SmithingAescopalus talkCrafting 17:46, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

w4 or 6, a3 or 4 - Keeping the main and off-hands split keeps the information the clearest about what item gives what stats. I don't see why armour can't show price, but I'm not sure on hiding weapon stats.

Can I also suggest, as part of these changes, creating a category for these pages - equipment in a set or theme, including weapon-only sets (drygore weaponry), armour-only sets (torva equipment), and mixed sets (rune equipment). Say, Category:Equipment sets. Category:Item sets should be only Grand Exchange sets so should have incorrectly categorised pages removed. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 16:49, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Sure i can do that as well, but wouldn't it be better to keep Category:Item sets for all sets and make a new Category:Grand Exchange sets for Grand Exchange sets because Item sets doesn't really imply that it is for GE sets only. InventionCephHunter talkSlayer 16:17, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

w3, a3 Compact but each give all the information. Also may I just add that I find general info pages for equipment sets, rather than the mere disambigs that some sets have and having to look on each individual page, way more useful. Thanks for taking the time to expand them. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 17:40, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

w6, a4 In w6, splitting the weapons into main- and off-hand makes for a cleaner look and is easier to read. Also, armour iirc doesn't give weapon bonuses, just the style bonuses, so that's why a4. Bren 04:36, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

w6, a4 - Per Bren. Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 13:58, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - a4 and w6 seem to be the consensus here. In regards to creating a category as added by Gaz, feel free to use your own judgement for that as it isn't really a big deal. xHR7zpA.png6encXAo.png 17:51, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.