Oblivion talk:Ayleid Ruins

Old Way

The Old Way listing on this page has a map link, even though it is not accessible from outside and is not on the map. Clicking on the map just brings up all of Cyrodil without a specific center. Either the map link should be taken down or the center should be for the palace sewers (I believe that is how you access them). Stouf761 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the map link is an auto-generated part of the template, so it would need to be fixed there. Jadrax 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a parameter you can add to stop it happening. Now done. Thanks for pointing it out! rpeh •T•C•E• 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New Layout

I'm not sure the table layout on this page is of much benefit compared to the previous list of place links. The new layout offers mostly the same information, with the addition of size and enemy type but with the loss of the (more useful IMO) map links. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking back at this a couple months since my comment, I agree. Maybe this page's unique table formatting (which I don't recall seeing anywhere else in the Oblivion or other wiki namespaces) is what should be reverted to the "standard" list-with-map-link format here, rather than forcing other similar place summary pages to match the unusual table format. --Mikeprichard (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I was going to post something about this the other day. No other place page is like this, and I don't envy the person who would have to make all the other ones follow the same format. Overall, the table is clunky and ugly. As Legoless said, it adds little utility at the expense of missing map links. You also lose the valuable non-duplication of material. Any edit to the place page is reflected when we use our {{Place Link}} template. —Dillonn241 (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: as it turns out, there is a template pulling data, so my last point is mute. However, that's even worse because it's specifically made for this page as a subpage. —Dillonn241 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure it's a relevant point, and you all may have seen this from the history of the page anyway, but it seems the change to the table (which I also find a bit ugly in retrospect) was done over a year ago by a user with no other history of edits, and I don't see any discussion around that time about or in support of the significant change. (Not knocking the user - just pointing out the major change seemed to be "out of the blue".) I'd be for reverting to a standard format. --Mikeprichard (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring this up myself. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said above: the table is ugly, adds little utility, and doesn't match the format of literally every other place listing on the wiki, making it stick out on the Places page like a sore thumb. I actually find it less convenient to get the information I want from the table rather than from a list. And I think Mikeprichard's point is relevant: this page was changed to a non-standard format by a new editor with no prior discussion or agreement and I'm quite frankly surprised it's been this long before the change was questioned. I would totally support a reversion to the wiki-standard format. — Wolfborn^(Howl) 16:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's four in agreement, so I reverted to Place Link style. —Dillonn241 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)