Template talk:Artifact Summary

Layout and Style

I think the layout and style of this table should be improved. First, the white border is very hard to see, as it doesn't have enough contrast. Also, the stats of the items is also hard to read, being all in a single column and each stat breaking into two or more lines. I find a table like the one in Artifacts a lot more clear. All you have to do is add the image. --DrPhoton 04:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I'd definitely be in favour of finding some ways to improve this template. Although I technically created it, the format was just taken directly from the boxes that had previously existed on the Oblivion:Artifacts page. However, it's worth keeping in mind that it's intended to be used for items that have individual pages (e.g., Morrowind:Umbra Sword); in other words, it's for a context where the more common tables listing multiple items don't work so well. Its design is also influenced by the fact that the Oblivion Artifacts page doesn't contain quite as many items as the Morrowind version, so there isn't as much need to compare items in a table-type format. Not to say that the format can't be adapted now that it's being used elsewhere. Or perhaps it even makes sense to use a different style for Morrowind than Oblivion.

And I only just figured out what (hopefully) you mean by "the white border is very hard to see." In Firefox, the table is just a basic black outline. But in IE it's apparently doing something like a raised box effect where some of the borders are white. And for that matter, the entire appearance of the box is much uglier in IE (in Firefox, each statistic is just on a single line; IE is putting almost every individual word on a different line). So I'll fiddle with at least trying to fix the IE appearance so it resembles the Firefox appearance :) --Nephele^Talk 20:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Another possibility, since there are so many more Morrowind artifacts than Oblivion artifacts, might be to do what I've done with the other items, dividing them between into two pages for Weapons and Apparel, or even Weapons, Armor, and Clothing. (Which leaves the three "Other" items wondering where to go...) It's too bad we can't find a way to make the images have a constant height and variable width rather the other way around, so they'd be more regular. The real space-waster here is those really tall vertical images. Maybe if I were to just pad them with grey letterboxing on the sides, they might behave a bit better. Seems a bit wasteful, though. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 23:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Revamp

I started off fiddling with minor things on this page, then ended up getting sucked into a complete overhaul. The primary motivation for an overhaul was to make the infobox more similar in appearance to those used on all the other wiki pages (NPC summary, Places summary, Ingredient summary, etc., etc.). The template had originally been setup to mimic the original layout on the Oblivion:Artifacts page, but it didn't really work too well (the column of data outside of the infobox just looked misplaced; the template looked odd if the image was missing, or there was no enchantment, or if the item had a long image and only one or two statistics).

Now the image is separate from the infobox, which eliminates problems of the rest of the box being squished/stretched/distorted based on the image; left-aligned images are what's being used in conjunction with all other infoboxes. At the default size, the image is smaller than it used to be, but that's because the image size is now controlled by user preferences: users who like large images will get large images. The infobox has a clear title (which also handles a couple of problems I'm anticipating: first, how to clearly distinguish Daedric artifacts from leveled artifacts from "run-of-the-mill" artifacts; second, how to specify which version of a leveled artifact is being shown).

Any feedback? --Nephele^Talk 04:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Nice! The only thing I would add is a cell for "Charge/Cost = Uses", which is at the moment listed in the "Enchantment" cell without any hint of what those numbers mean. --DrPhoton 08:53, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Good point :) I've stuck in the "Charge/Cost=Uses" text. Ideally, I'd like to get that information moved to a separate parameter (called "Charge"), because trying to guess when the text is needed and when it's not needed is very unreliable. Hopefully the hacks I've got in there now are working on most of the pages, but really it's going to take going through and making a lot of edits (and after finding out just how many edits last night, I'm not too eager to jump in and go through them all one more time...). --Nephele^Talk 13:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I was planning to go through the Morrowind Artifacts myself, so I can do those and you can do the rest ;) --DrPhoton 03:12, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Wiki vs HTML table

User:Nephele changed this template to use an HTML table [1] to 'hopefully.. make Artifacts pages load much more quickly'. I see no change in loading or rendering speed.

Examples: HTML Table | Wiki Table

Nothing compelling but switching back would give consistency across templates and make it easier for editors not familiar with HTML. ‒ Joram↝Talk 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes To Template

If any one wants to know, I changed some small things in the new version of the template.

• Reverted to wikitable, no performance difference noted on pages with many artifacts.
• ObjectID/EditorID, the docs did not reflect current usage, I changed them. It was also easier to code.
• Oblivion: If ObjectID is not used EditorID will show in table, not next to artifact name.
• Statistics title no longer displayed if nothing in section.
• Charges will be displayed in Enchantment section if Enchant is missing.
• All parameters are case insensitive, this may be unnecessary code, could be removed.
• Edit link only displays if Title displays. Old version displayed link with no title sometimes.
• Rating and Damage will both be displayed if both parameters are used. The row will not display right to warn user of the problem, this is deliberate.
• Charges can't be specified in Enchant any more. Only Shivering:Staff of Sheogorath still used this, it was updated.

‒ Joram↝Talk 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is so much better than before! There's one other possible improvement though: the cleantable tag means you shouldn't have to check that there's a type (for instance) before displaying it. Compare to the NPC Summary where things like "Added by Plug-in" just get shown with no checks. I think the same thing should be possible here. I'll leave it to you in case you already tried it in preview and it didn't work. Great job though - I can remove this one from my To Do list! rpeh •T•C•E• 11:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

'Added by Plug-in' is a header cell so it gets removed by cleantable when the data cell is. 'Type' is a normal cell and is only removed if the cell is blank. There's something strange there though, the {{{Enchant}}} cell was removed even when it wasn't blank. I may abandon cleantable for this, I'm putting it on my list to have another look at later. ‒ Joram↝Talk 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Enchant Section

That text-align="center" tag on the Enchant section looks really messy when there is more than one effect. Wouldn't it look better left-aligned? --Brf 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks okay as it is, but that may just be a case of being used to seeing it that way. I could see a left-aligned bulleted list working well too, though that'd probably need to be a bot job to update it. I can see a possible way of doing it via the template itself, but I'm not sure it would work, and it'd probably be counter-intuitive even if it did. (Off-topic, I decided this should probably be a new section, so I removed your {{od}} tag and added a title.) – Robin Hood↝talk 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was banging through Random Pages earlier and when I hit this one Morrowind:Ebony_Mail_(artifact) I thought the mis-aligned spell icons looked messy. The example on this template's page does not include icons, so it doesnt look quite as bad. --Brf 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Artifact: Artifact Summary
Type {{{type}}} Statistics  Weight style="text-align:center;" |  Value

I see your point. That could be fixed by doing something like this, but that's definitely more trouble than it's worth for wide-spread usage.

I'll wait and see what others think, but I wouldn't be opposed to left-aligning. Now that you point out the spell icons, though, I'm thinking a bot going and putting bullets in might be a bad idea. – Robin Hood↝talk 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the coding for the tables in these templates, but couldn't you just embed a table inside the one cell used for enchant? Give that table's cell left-align and move the enchant tag inside that embedded cell. Then you would get the same result as your example, without changing anything else. --Brf 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Artifact: Artifact Summary
Type	{{{type}}}
Statistics
Weight	style="text-align:center;" |  Value

Like this. Of course the new table would be part of the template so the "xxxxx" line could be omitted. For some reason, the table was not rendered when I did not include something on that line. --Brf 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Test that page using Brf/Sandbox as the template and you will see what I mean --Brf 16:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right...I didn't even think of that. Oh and the trick to getting the table to render properly is to use   or <nowiki/> right after the =. (I've changed my template call, above, just to demonstrate.) It has to do with how the parser works on the wiki - it strips off any whitespace in a parameter value, but at the same time, requires that table definitions always start on a new line. The two are inherently in conflict, so you put the HTML equivalent of a space in, so that the wiki doesn't see whitespace there, but when rendered, it has no effect on the output.

I'll tentatively change the template coding and we'll see how it works out. – Robin Hood↝talk 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Looking at the Artifact list pages, it looks cleaner now IMHO. --Brf 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

\=>Why do you use a table for this kind formatting? Using a <div> in this case with the same style properties (minus the ones that become unnecessary) should do the trick. Posting it here first though, in case I might oversee something. --Timenn-<talk> 18:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That should work even better. But, as I said before, I am not too familiar with Wiki formatting, so I do not know how HTML mixes with Wiki-markup. --Brf 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if anything I prefer it as it is now - fully centred. It looks odd left-aligned in the middle of nowhere, but it's really not a big deal. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@Timenn: It's an age-old argument about whether to use tables or divs that I really have no opinion about either way. I tend to use wiki markup rather than HTML on the grounds that I figure the wiki software will be able to handle it better, but that's by no means certain (as demonstrated by the Notice template). A div tag would probably simplify that section of the Artifact Summary quite a bit, so if we keep the centered but left-aligned formatting, that's probably the way to go. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Speed, Reach, and Health

Currently all of our Skyrim artifacts aren't listing their speed and reach data in this template. However, with the release of the CK that information is out there, available for our use. After a bit of experimentation on my part, however, I've found that this information does not show up on the article that the template originates from, despite it transcluding properly with the information. For an example, see Skyrim:The Pale Blade which currently has its reach and speed fields filled in. You'll notice that the speed and reach fields do not appear on the template, but they do in the transcluded version that you can see in my sandbox if you scroll down to the entry on The Pale Blade. I have no clue what is wrong, and it might not even be this template, but I currently am not sure what else could be the issue.

As a different issue, as item health no longer exists in Skyrim, these fields are left blank, which doesn't look very good. Is it possible that we can alter the template so it can display properly, without the blank space, for Skyrim items? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Blech! I'm thinking it might be time for a gamespace-based subpage style for this, like we've done with Place Summary, and I think a few other templates. I'll see if I can figure out a fix for this for the short term, though, cuz I don't have time today (or probably for a few days) to do a total rewrite. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's got it, but I'm going to be gone for the rest of the afternoon/evening, so please revert it if I've horribly messed anything up. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! Though, now that I look at the CK some more, I think we'll need some extra data fields for each weapons critical multiplier, the amount of critical damage a weapon does on a critical hit, and a field for how much stagger a weapon causes. The first two are a bit self explanatory, (as I figured out while reading the Creation Kit Wiki), but I'm still not entirely sure what stagger does. If someone can determine what exactly it does and if it would be relevant to add to this template (the explanation I got didn't really help much), that would be fantastic. But I'm positive adding fields for the chance to do a critical hit and the amount of damage you'll do with one is necessary and relevant information. Unless I'm much more daft than originally expected, of course. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 07:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...we're definitely going to need to rewrite this to have gamespace-specific subtemplates then! I don't anything about stagger information, but I'll poke around when I get a chance and see what I can come up with. – Robin Hood↝talk 08:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Plug-In" vs. "Add-On"

This template currently displays "Added by Plug-in" when a value is assigned to the Mod parameter. Based on the decision to change plug-in, expansion, etc. to add-on for Skyrim, do we want to change this template? IIRC, we didn't want to go back and change the wording for MW and OB plug-ins and expansions, so this creates a grey area with this template. --Xyzzy ^Talk 07:07, 23 January 2014 (GMT)

While it could be made namespace specific, what if we just shortened it to "Added by"? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 07:20, 23 January 2014 (GMT)

It just bothers me to see "Plug-in" in a Skyrim article. Rewording it to something more generic like this is fine with me. --Xyzzy ^Talk 02:57, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Okay, removed. Let's see if anyone even notices. :Þ – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:00, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Maybe I'm the only crazy one. I also just noticed the same thing for the creature summary template. Do you want to make the same change to it and any other summary templates that still use plug-in? I checked the NPC summary, and it uses add-on. --Xyzzy ^Talk 05:15, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Wasn't thinking of that, but yeah, we'll probably want to do the same across the board. I'm on my way to bed right now, but bug me tomorrow if you don't see any activity by about 12 hours from now, and I'll do a search and replace whatever needs replacing. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Okay, I did all the ones I found. There goes the job queue. :Þ – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (GMT)

Thank you. Now I can sleep soundly tonight. --Xyzzy ^Talk 07:23, 26 January 2014 (GMT)

DLC IDs

Can the ID link for form ids that start with xx for mods, applied to the {{ID}} template be implemented here? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:30, 13 May 2014 (GMT)

Yes, but I'll want to go over the existing IDs and see if there are any special cases that need handled. I'll have a look at it in a couple of days once I'm done with the Online Quests updates. (By which I mean: remind me in a few days when I'm done the quest updates and have completely forgotten this discussion. :Þ) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:58, 13 May 2014 (GMT)

Okay, this should be done now, give or take the special cases, which I'll go through and fix manually now, since there's only about 20 of them or so. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (GMT)

Mod Headers for Transclusion?

When an artefact is transcluded in a page (like Skyrim:Unique Weapons), should it include the relevant mod header as well? If so, is it possible to incorporate this into the template? —<({QT>> 23:57, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

We'd have to modify the Dawnguard template calls a bit (currently, they use mod=[[Skyrim:Dawnguard|Dawnguard]] where they'd probably be best as mod=Dawnguard so we can use them straight with the {{Mod Note}} template), but yeah, this could be done. I'll leave the question of whether or not it should be done to others. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:24, 11 August 2014 (GMT)

There's an example in one of my sandboxes if you're curious to see how that would look. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:53, 12 August 2014 (GMT)

Missing Tempering Variable Explanations

While attempting to add data, I discovered that the tempering parameters (Tempering and Perk) are not listed or defined on the template page, and I only was able to locate them because I saw them used on a page and checked the template's code. Any reason they shouldn't be added to the explanation? -Caraamon (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Armor Sets

Random thought: Is there a reasons that there's no place to list the set which the armor belongs to, with regard to the Matching Set perks? Some of them are obvious, but others not so much. -Caraamon (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Enchant Section revisit

After many years of using the wiki and appreciating its input - I wonder now why we still use the "hiddentable" class for the enchant section of this infobox. I understand why we want to include the charge/uses section but in doing so I see little reason as to why the actual enchantment effect should be omitted. Would it not be possible to preformat the infobox in the template backend with options for 'enchant1', 'enchant2', 'enchant3' etc just to make sure the formatting is uniform among those infoboxes with multiple effects? It shouldn't be difficult otherwise to highlight those infoboxes with "large" {{{enchant}}} variables and have them added to a category that needs reformatting (as I imagine most of those pages would not have uniform formatting between games). I'd love to hear thoughts on this as it seems silly for the infobox to simply show charge/uses and rely on the user/page to infer what the effect is (especially when 99% of these pages already have the variable set within the infobox). IPathos (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There was an issue with the template, which wasn't displaying the enchantment data correctly. This was fixed earlier today so they should be present now. Regarding hiddentables, they're not actually hidden, it's a just for styling purposes, for organizing something into a table, without it looking like one. We definitely could go to a enchant1/2/3/etc. style for that parameter, but it depends on if there is an actual value for the work done. Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 11:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely appearing now which was my main concern seeing as it pretty much invalidated the enchant variable in each infobox. I was sure I'd seen them recently but was very confused to see that the enchantment section of the current template hadn't been changed in nearly a decade - guessing I happened to make my original point during a backend change. Either way - it's there now so no skin off my back. IPathos (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)