Skyrim talk:Proudspire Manor

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: Nov 2011 - Mar 2015

XMarker future reference[edit]

In case anyone was having trouble with furniture, here are a few xmarkers not included in this article.

  • 0300418B ('SolitudePlayerHouseDecorateLivingRoomSupplementalDisable') - Crates in front of child's bedroom (undecorated).
  • 0300418C ('SolitudePlayerHouseDecorateLivingRoomSupplemental') - Bookshelves in front of child's bedroom.

--Sweetroll (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion to Houses[edit]

As I understand it, Sweetroll intends to do all the houses over time. I think the new format is much better, though it should definitely retain the colouring of the current version, and much more similar to our format for other tables, like weapons, armour, etc. Houses would need a bit of a re-think, I'll admit—or just split it off—but personally, I'd rather see the new format on each individual house page and worry about Houses later. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The new format makes the Houses page much less easy to understand, even if the correct tags were applied to stop the whole article from being transcluded. Instead of having all the table display on my screen I need to "page down" twice to see all of the information. The tables to not need to have any consistency with any other tables other than those it is comparable too, and that is the other House tables. There is nothing wrong with the current tables, their presentation, their readability, the ability to quickly compare them to each other, finding the information contained within them, or any other necessary or desirable reason to alter them. The only reason there would be any change to them now is because someone simply doesn't like them or wants something to do. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
What makes it much harder to understand? My new table has added categories that actually label the content of the columns, and has a similar theme with any other table on this site. Honestly, the first time I read the table I completely missed the IDs, which is one of the only uses someone would have for such a table. I had to open the editor to find the right IDs instead of just finding the information here. The columns aren't categorized either. As much as you want the table to be as compact as possible, in practice it doesn't work. I have discussed this in the official Discord chat and no one had any argument against this proposal. If you really want a template for transclusion, that's not a problem. I intended the table's information to be read much more easily, and I think we should discuss this with other members of the community.
Edit: Looking at Skyrim:Houses I can see where you're going at. But honestly, I believe functionality should have a higher priority in a table like this which the player can troubleshoot bugged furniture. If you look at that table alone on a house page, it looks out of place and the information is jumbled together without any categorization, the reader has to categorize and needs to know how to read these tables. But he's going to have to figure this out himself.--Sweetroll (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit2: If you really want to keep the old table format then you can just add vertical categories to make it at least a tiny bit more eligible. Something like this.--Sweetroll (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The new table style is much nicer, as it gets rid of all those columns of arbitrary widths and also gets rid of the arbitrary colour scheme. All it needs is a couple of <onlyinclude>s and it's good to go. If it's really that important to have the horizontal rainbow design on the Houses page, then we can just subst it out, but the Houses page shouldn't dictate how the info is displayed here, which is vastly improved by a proper vertical table. --Enodoc (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
These tables are good for fast comparison in the Houses pages, I don't disagree, but alone in a page of a specific house it looks out of place. Also as much as I visited uesp, I never saw the Skyrim:Houses page. So creating a table that's better suited for individual house pages that are easier to navigate is the way to go. That's why I'm making a proposal, to make a more functional table but sacrifice it's compactness. As for transclusion... Why not manually set the table contents and have them separate for the Skyrim:Houses and the individual house pages? It's not like Skyrim is getting a lot of updates (the contents of these tables wouldn't change since the release of Hearthfire) that need to be transcluded to other pages. What is the need for transclusion in this scenario? --Sweetroll (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
What makes it harder to use? The fact that the information needs 3 screens to see it all, whereas now it is all on one. There is an extremely simply test to do to see if any work needs done. The test consists solely of the question "Is there anything wrong with it?" The only real answer to that question in regards the tables is a resounding no. Making every table on the site identical actually detracts as it allows no room for any theatrical flourishes that actually improve the site by drawing your attention to important information. To suggest the houses page might benefit from being trebled in length is beyond ludicrous, most sane people think reducing the spread of information allows for better comparison.
Frankly your arguments about readability are not true. No-one can confuse what the gold amount is for. The editor ids are pointless, and even the formids are pointless but they at least fit within the existing table and we don't subject other tables to unrealistic amounts of description of what the ids are for so there is no need here. The Upgrade name is self-explanatory, as are the added items. Your table only adds one line to the existing information on the items and adds a bullet point to each entry, so there is no added 'functionality'. All decisions are arbitrary. The decision to not have set widths for certain sections is a decision made by one person deciding what is the best look, exactly the same as someone deciding to add widths to keep the horizontal lines in the current table line up. No matter how much agreement you had on discord the only place that matters officially is the wiki. No decision taken on discord can over-ride or replace a decision taken on the wiki, and any amount of 'no disagreements' you can claim elsewhere is ignorable.
All that said I'm not completely opposed to the addition of vertical categories per sweetrolls example (I altered the purchased from part from 3 columns to 2 as it was very wide), but I would still argue that it was unnecessary. I don't remember a single complaint about the layout or its readability in the 5 years between its creation and now. PS. The Housecarl does belong because having one alters your house and your house is not considered complete until you have all of it unlocked (excepting the either/or parts). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick comment in regards to Silencer's last paragraph: I've always found the current version of the house tables difficult to read...I just didn't have anything else to offer, so there was really no point in complaining about it. Adding flourishes might also be unnecessary if we're using our standard layout. I'm no layout/design whiz, though, so I leave that to others to decide. I also suspect Sweetroll's table could be reduced in size to some degree. I don't know if it would be enough to make Houses more readable as a side-by-side article, as opposed to the over-under style it is now, but that's at least a possibility that could be played with. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
IDs are pointless? I'm sorry but are you serious? People use those to troubleshoot bugs or mods. My first instinct of solving a mod conflict is to Google an xmarker ID to fix it. What's more useless is the column that includes the furniture since it's just a list of things that are added (which isn't even accurate). There is something wrong with it in fact, and you're just denying it in favor of 'flourishes'. I don't mind making my table smaller but the current table is annoying to read as I said over 5 times. The current table is just a list of bullet points only with a hint of context from the rows. --Sweetroll (talk)
I just need to say two things. I think the current table is not hard to read, and I prefer it over a longer list, as Silencer pointed out that, beside IDs, it shows all info afaik. However, I do think that having the IDs is important as well. I would suggest a separate list somewhere for IDs, like with item lists and their IDs. I don't know if that feasible, but I just wanted to add this ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)