Forum:Improve disassembly template styles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Improve disassembly template styles
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 March 2021 by KelseW.

The disassembly template doesn't look as good as other Infobox-styled templates. I propose a change to the visual display of this template.

Fen76cu.png

In the proposed update, the template header is moved to the top and says the item name (default to page name if |name = isn't provided). The materials subheaders are reworded to say "materials", and the details button is moved to a new section at the bottom. If it's useful, we could add other links to the bottom section like the template links we have on Template:Infobox Item.

Discussion

Support #1 - as nominator. Riblet15 (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to current template on example page: Adamant_full_helm_(g)#Disassembly

Support 1 Iiii I I I 05:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Can you explain why the header with the item name is there? It doesn't seem useful to me. I also think the "Details" part should be renamed to "Open in Calculator" or something similar (that's all it is – FAQ/doc links are not similar), and it doesn't need a header. ʞooɔ 05:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a variant mock with the button adjusted (ignore the content):
r9GpnVm.png
For me, including the infobox styled header is necessary to maintain visual cohesion with other table elements, which all have a dark bar at the top. Showing the item name could be useful on pages with multiple switches, since you would otherwise only see the version button text here. It could also be a useful reference when viewing the page on mobile, where you would otherwise never see the item name while looking at the disassembly info (since the page is scrolled down and the URL bar is hidden). Including the item name seems at worst neutral, while it improves consistency in our design and plausibly provides benefit in these scenarios. Riblet15 (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I like this mock up but I think the open calc button should be a little smaller. It just looks like it doesn't quite fit in there. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    17:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1 - Per nominator; headerless just looks off. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 04:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1 - Do not care for "Details" being in its own section with a header HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1 - Headless feels wrong when we use headers in so many other templates. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    07:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1/Variant mock and minor comment - Looks good - one thing to note if this is implemented is that the labels for the materials may not be correct in your screenshots. Often = Common materials (correctly mapped), Rarely = Uncommon Materials (this is currently listed as Rare Materials in your screenshot) and Special = Rare/Ancient materials (not demonstrated in the examples). Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1 (and Aescopalus comments) - I like the proposal 1 infobox. Support. As mentioned above, though, "rare materials" should be "uncommon materials" and there would be another box below for "Rare/Special materials". I am fairly neutral on the open calculator vs. details button, but perhaps something more descriptive than "Details" would be in order, while we are makign some changes anyway.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral for top header, generally Oppose otherwise:

  • I don't really care about the top header although it might be better served just having a generic heading about the section that follows.
  • The current heading box with "Possible Materials" is necessary and shouldn't be removed. This marks a new section of the template under which the "Often" and Rarely" are subheadings. If you remove this, you visually make the materials sections into separate, unrelated sections within the template in equal stead to the top rows.
  • The current "Often" / "Rarely" wording for the headers is based on the Analyse information in game and so is a reasonable reference for readers in this sense. Of course, the invention pouch lists them differently so understandably there are two different ways to refer to things. However, the current way does a good job of highlighting special materials (example:Bag_of_clues#Disassembly), which are outlined at the top in the "Special" section rather than blending in at the bottom under an "uncommon" heading. Personally, I think it would be better if it stayed that way - it's much easier when looking at possible unique materials (Does this clue item gives fortunates?, for example)
  • I'm not too bothered about the placement or wording of the details / calculator button but if at the bottom this needs a separator to visually separate it from the previous section, and if it's a heading then this should not be the same colour as the materials subheadings mentioned above so that it's clearly separate from the preceding subsection.
  • Minor point but the bold on the individual material links looks messy. It's a list rather than multiple headings (unlike the headings above) so it is not necessary to make these bold. --Henneyj 04:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't intend to shuffle any of the materials sections, the example picture may have been misleading since it didn't show every section. I tried making a more complete mock here, which can be seen at User:Riblet15/Sandbox if you paste the following css in the web inspector:
.infobox-buttons {margin-bottom:2px;}
.rsw-disassembly-calc-popup-button {float:none;margin:0.5em 0;}
.rsw-disassembly-calc-popup-button .oo-ui-labelElement-label {font-size: 0;}
.rsw-disassembly-calc-popup-button .oo-ui-labelElement-label:after  {content:"Open calculator";font-size: 12px!important;}
.disassembly-materials-header {border-top:0!important;padding:0!important;}
Similarly, the bold material text was a copy/paste error when making those pictures. Riblet15 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yea in that case it's just a matter of preference over which wording to use. The problems with the section headers are still there in that though - it needs to be clear that each section for the materials is a subsection of the same thing rather than possibly being interpreted as an independent section each time. And the calculator at the bottom is not meant to be part of the final materials section so it needs to be separated from that section with a line or something. I can't be bothered to do it properly but I've done a quick photoshop to show what I mean: Here's an idea of what it needs to keep the sections clearly defined. Henneyj 22:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Support 1 (and Aescopalus comments) with "Open Calculator" text. The mockup in the previous comment looks good imo (aside from not being dark mode). — F-Lambda (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support top header Not so sure about the header with the name, it seems redundant other than on pages with a switch, and there it might be better to just put the dropdown for the switch in that area. I do however think it should have a header, I'm generally opposed to tables without headers. Maybe just "Invention Information" or "Disassembly Information" or something like that? I do like the enlarged details section with "Open Calculator" best, assuming it still fits on 1 line, but also not opposed to keeping it in the materials header. Agree with Cook that the materials sections need an overall header and that the sections should remain as they are. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed - There is a consensus to use the most recent mockup Riblet provided. It removes the header for the "details/open calculator" button, as well as renaming it. There is also a consensus to keep the top header as the item name. As for components naming, common/uncommon/rare/special naming will be used. Talk to Kelsey 05:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)