Hi, I got a few suggestions for the table layout you are working on the units page:
- If a column is common to all ites in the table (here it would be faction) it would be best to remove it and add a note above the table instead -- though on that page it is also understandable from the header name.
- Add "id" markers to new rows with name of row (here it would be unit names). That way, they could be linked directly. For example, Colonizer.
- I'll be uploading any missing unit module icons so you can may want to prepare a place for them. They will join the rest of the icons already here Category:Module_icons.
- If a column has a common theme/icon associated with it it is easier to use that instead.
- columns where I'm unsure if they have such an icon are for now unknown.
- While roman numerical are nice looking 1,2,3 are much easily recognizable.
- No need to capitalize every word, the first on would suffice.
- Use icon as bulletin points. It makes it easier for the user to read.
- Use colored text (and bold) only when needed. It helps not to overload the user by making it easier to read.
- Have tables/columns use fixed width (percentage is preferred, point of reference of 1080P). This gives the page a more consistent look. This can also be done later.
I got to go for now, so will address the rest of your points (on my talk-page) a bit later. Enjoy the weekend. Edit: Due to a bug in the wiki I had to trim this bit. Hope it is still helpful. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I do like this table better. Here are my comments :)
- I wanted to add unit appearance icons as the first column, but as far as I'm aware we do not have any unit icons/images (except for vehicles) on the wiki.
- I don't think it would make sense to include what modules a particular unit can equip in the unit tables. There are a whole lot of possibilities considering all minor factions etc. and would make the table practically unreadable, I think. If you meant a separate area on the unit page to list all the modules then that is something that can be done later, or they might even merit their own page. There is already an Equipment page for that matter.
- Colonizer is a horrible id, every faction has one and they are not the same. :P Better make it "Dvar Colonizer" at least.
- If we are using icons in the header I see no point in using the icon in one column (movement) in the table as well, but not doing so for the other attributes. Either all or none. Unless you want to use specific movement type icons for every unit, eg by flying units.
- There is no icon in-game that signifies upkeep, it's simply spelled out. And just using the energy icon (in the header) just confuses things.
- We have the images for movement on the wiki, but they are not part of the icon template. Nor are there any weakness/resist down icons.
- Some of the icons that I feel are missing from the template. The other movement icons might be useful to have as well. I don't know how to make new icons, but it says on the page that it is restricted due to high traffic anyways. I could always link directly to the image in the table, but I'd prefer to use a template.
- Also, there are no images for the NPC factions as far as I can tell.
- Hope I covered all points:
- My mistake. For some reason I though I had unit icons, but it is indeed unit module icons. In that case, the column icon can be removed.
- That would be a better id. Though I have several hours logged on Steam they were mainly for the wiki and not playing.
- Regarding movement, that is indeed what I meant (left a note in the table script, but should have made it clearer).
- The above reason also applies to upkeep. The question is whether there are other upkeep types other than energy?
- The main icon page is restricted. The sub-pages and the documentation are not. I have a bunch of more icons that will be uploaded later (mods, abilities, doctrines, operations and so on).
- I haven't added the weakness/resist icons yet since they don't look good when minimized (see above -- may need some editing).
- What is the action column for?
- Table has been modified to reflect raised points.
- If we could get the actual unit icons that would be awesome. Tho I feel that getting faction icons for the NPC factions would be more important.
- I haven't seen every unit yet, but as far as I've seen all units of the same tier has the same upkeep regardless of faction. Tier 4 units have 24 and 4 in upkeep. And coming expansions might add units with more exotic upkeep I suppose.
- So if I want to add icons I can add them to the subtemplates? I hadn't seen these before but I found them now. I could add movement at least - never mind, I see you already did it.
- The Action column lists the units Active Abilities, eg weapons abilities, buffing abilities etc. The Dvar colonizer doesn't have any Active Abilities which is why it's empty. Strictly speaking, the in-game view shows 4 different categories of abilities/traits, separated by horizontal rulers. Active Abilities, Resistances, Passive Abilities, Traits. This table lumps the resistances in with the passive abilities and named the active abilities column actions instead. I don't know why. I didn't make the original table, I only added some things. I didn't see any reason to change it either, both the Resistances and Passive Abilities are... passive... *shrug* They are functionally similar.
- There is a question if there is more information that should be added, I was thinking mainly of a Requirements column or similar. Listing prerequisite research and buildings. Also, not all units are built. Some, like the Dvar Sapper and Vanguard Valkyrie can only be summoned onto the battlefield by tactical operation and disappear at end of combat. Some units only appear during siege battles provided they have been built (eg Dvar Bombard). And some are launched from other units, eg Vanguard Engineer deploys their Turret and Vanguard Drone Carrier launches Assault, Repair and Skirmish Drones. None of this is apparent from the current table. Oh and also maybe base production cost.