Monolithic Tables?

**Hark**

I just finished writing the template for skill training tables (don't look at the source -- it'll burn your eyes out), and the training table for Windmill. Unsurprisingly, really, the resulting table is absolutely monolithic.

Breaking it into multiple tables doesn't fix the problem (since it'll take up the same amount of vertical space), though if you wanted to do that, all it would entail is making an adjustment to Template:Skill_Training_Header to create new tables at each step or something.

Do you think this vertical cliff is a problem? It seems all the other sites did it this way (well, they all borrowed JP wiki's page layout, which may have been borrowed from elsewhere etc), but I'm not convinced it's optimal. It may save space to remove a lot of the duplicate data (ie, the "methods" are repeated a lot) and break it into one equally monolithic but smaller table, with the rows being each method and the columns being ranks.

Opinions?

**Inuri**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hark

I just finished writing the template for skill training tables (looking at the source will burn your eyes out), and the training table for Windmill. Unsurprisingly, really, the resulting table is absolutely monolithic.

Breaking it into multiple tables doesn't fix the problem (since it'll take up the same amount of vertical space), though if you wanted to do that, all it would entail is making an adjustment to Template:Skill_Training_Header to create new tables at each step or something.

Do you think this vertical cliff is a problem? It seems all the other sites did it this way (well, they all borrowed JP wiki's page layout, which may have been borrowed from elsewhere etc), but I'm not convinced it's optimal. It may save space to remove a lot of the duplicate data (ie, the "methods" are repeated a lot) and break it into one equally monolithic but smaller table, with the rows being each method and the columns being ranks.

Opinions?

I looked. MY EYES! SOURCE BURNS!

**Hark**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuri

I looked. MY EYES! SOURCE BURNS!

OH GOD THIS IS WHY I WARNED YOU

Spoiler: I didn't actually type all of it.

**TofuCakee**

hehe at least you can joke about your eyes burning. bit much but i looked.

PokePoke

Come to think of it, there is another way...
Make a table where the rows are the names of the different training methods and the columns are the different ranks. In the individual cells, you can do a variety of things:
- put an "X" or "-" depending on whether it is a training method or not
- put 3.00(10) where 3.00 is the exp gained and 10 is the number of times you can use it.
- highlight the cell (or the contents) if the training method is hidden

**Bakuryu**

it looks quite good o.o =)

**Hark**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokePoke

Come to think of it, there is another way...
Make a table where the rows are the names of the different training methods and the columns are the different ranks. In the individual cells, you can do a variety of things:
- put an "X" or "-" depending on whether it is a training method or not
- put 3.00(10) where 3.00 is the exp gained and 10 is the number of times you can use it.
- highlight the cell (or the contents) if the training method is hidden

Okay, so I made an example of how this would look -

User:Hark/SkillTrainingTest

Honestly, it doesn't look that bad, and would turn that massive monolithic table into something considerably more managable (though it doesn't have the total exp field); possibly at the cost of readibility. What do you guys think about that one?

Ctwolf

wow this is much neater and more organised then other stuff ive seen this will be REALLY easy to follow... as for an opinion what ur doing is fine in my opinion, the windmill table//example u gave up top was perfect, idiot proof as one might say.

**Hark**

Okay, so before I hunker down and put these in for every skill (since it takes a long time to transcribe it) --

Do you guys prefer the way Windmill looks, or the way User:Hark/SkillTrainingTest looks? If there's no objections, I'm actually leaning towards the later, since, though it's a little less clean (and doesn't show the net exp), it's much more concise. I'm not a big fan of the "oh my this table is three times as long as the rest of the article" thing.

PokePoke

Well, I went ahead and completed the table (Haxor'ed your wiki page), mainly because I was curious what it would look like completed.

A few weeks ago, I would have told you I was in favor of the latter as well. Now, I'm indifferent.