Talk:Formatting

Open

Proposal to Reduce Image Density

I've been thinking that it might be good to remove the "profile" pictures along side links to Character articles, that can be seen on some pages (E.G Tribute). I have two reasons:
 * 1) The panel images used for character pages don't feel like they're the right dimensions for this kind of use. As is, they aren't really legible and if you up the PX to make them more crisp, they greatly disrupt the vertical spacing of paragraphs.
 * 2) I feel like, on some pages, there is an issue with image bloat. An example could be an item like Wood, which has a lot of use cases and sources. Removing the "profile" image would reduce the density.


 * Moxieonline (talk)

Resolved

Item Icon Sizing
 * 1) Users may create new pages and use whatever standard they want. But DO NOT make edits or reverts to icon sizing until this issue has been resolved.
 * 2) Users are not required to follow the formatting standard outlined in the guide, but are kindly requested to do so.
 * 3) The halt of editing/reformatting of icon sizing is a considerable disruption to editors, so all users interested in participating will have 1 week to contribute their opinion on the matter. After this time, the formatting page will be adjusted as necessary.
 * 4) After this point, any reverts made which specifically undo updates to pages that brought them in line with the formatting standard will be considered "Bad edits" and will be treated as such. If you have issues with a standard, you must first open the change to discussion before finalizing the change.

First, I would like to make some things explicitly clear. I myself violated point #4 by failing to open a discussion regarding the change to icon sizing that I made when I created the formatting article, and I want to apologize for that. I alone made that decision, when it wasn't mine alone to make. Going forward, I will try my best to be a better guardian, and I will be enforcing that changes made to formatting be open to discussion first.

I am opening this discussion now and hope all current editors can contribute to the conversation and we can come to an agreement. If you have an opinion regarding the current standard (50px) or the new standard (35px) for item icon sizing, please share them here.

Remember: when determining formatting, think from a reader's perspective, not an editor's, as the ultimate goal for us as editors is to make as pleasing an experience as we can for the users.


 * Moxieonline (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who was visiting this wiki purely as a reader just a month ago, hopefully I can provide some additional insight on how I experienced it back then. I honestly thought the 50px icons were the default size of the item icons and that editors hadn't changed them to be a better size yet, which I think speaks a lot for how ill-fitting the 50px standard was. The 50px icons leave that wonky amount of space in between each line (you can go to any exploration event page and compare the top summary to the "Inspect" description to see the difference between them - it's very noticeable) and kind of takes you out of the reading experience imo.

I believe one could potentially go up to a 40px size instead if the 35px one is far too small (I've tested it in some previews previously, it's a decent middle ground between the two) but I think it's important to remember that this wiki is mostly conveying information through text, and as such we should strive to keep all text as legible as possible. The icons appearances in the text serve as a good visual shorthand to the reader, but making them as large as 50px leads to them being more visually cumbersome than they should be.
 * Double0Selven (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to wait a while before stating my own opinion. I agree with making the text a priority, ensuring it's clear and accurate, ahead of other elements -- especially those which are only meant to "liven up" the page. I looked at a few pages and experimented with 40px and I agree it makes a decent middle ground. An instance where I thought 40px might still be just a tad too large was, for example, the Skull Tree exploration event, specifically the Note section where there's 2 full lines of icons. Pages like the skull tree might be less common, though, so I'm cool with 40px if it checks all the boxes for the other editors!
 * Moxieonline (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at the page you mentioned and I agree that the 40px size is still a bit awkward in situations like that. For that reason I'm still leaning towards 35px because as I mentioned above it's just better for a primarily text-based medium like this.
 * Double0Selven (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty! Thanks for the input. The deadline is here and the protection has been lifted. I consider this issue resolved, with the standard being changed from 50px to 35px. I'll make the necessary edits/reverts. Happy editing!
 * Moxieonline (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Other Standards Feel free to open discussions on any and all other formatting guidelines.
 * Moxieonline (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Collaborative dialogue

What you should have done from the get go is open a discord group with yourself, me and DS in it. There have been no other editors in a long, long time, and we can always archive the reasons for a change for people to see here. I'm still open to discussing this in a discord group, in a friendly and collaborative fashion. As I've been open to from the start.

However if you deny this cry for collaboration under some pretenses, it's clear what's your agenda here. You first denied me any involvement in the formatting overhaul you privately made with DS. Then you denied me equal access to discuss those changes after they were made, several times in fact. Point #4 points to you just wishing to ram your changes through, like that's your intention here. If my simple ask of an open discussion about it in a good medium for chatting (E.g. a Discord group) is denied, every rational person with a set of eyes can see what is going on. You never wanted my input on the formatting and this formality is to make it a reality


 * 1Skyfire1 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)