Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Table[edit]
I'm not sure I like the tables on this page. They are long and narrow which means lots of scrolling and lots of white space. Any thoughts on alternative layouts? --Minx (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- How about it now? I've arrange to put it in 2 column. You could also split up the second table and arrange it in 3 column instead of 2? Paco (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think a three-column table layout (Name, Image, Price), with the two tables following each other on the page, is probably better than the current side-by-side one. If nothing else, it'd maintain more consistency with the other list pages (Fish, bugs etc.). --aniki21 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- You could even have a fourth column for Size (small/large) and combine both into the one table? --aniki21 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The small/large thing is a bit confusing. The fossils listed as small are simply single items, while the large fossils are pieces of full creatures - usually 3 or 4 parts to make a whole dinosaur. I'm not convinced that separate tables are required at all and would be happy to return to a Name, Image, Price layout as Aniki mentioned. It would be more in-keeping with the other lists.--Minx (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I typically prefer a combined name/image column, as it saves horizontal space, but that's not the problem here. I edited the page to show two alternatives: Amber at the the top of the current table shows a better version of what I started. The new table I created (above the current one) goes back to the three image layout. It saves vertical whitespace, but the images have to be squished. Scrolling will be required unless you for the images to 25 or 50px. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the current image-and-name-in-one-column one. As the tables don't really present any important information other than the price, we can have a larger image will let give people a preview of fossils they hadn't obtained. T.testLP(talk) 08:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I like the name and image layout too, slightly prefer the name above the image - however, still not sure about the white space - I'd vote for getting rid of the small/large separation and sticking it all in one table, split it in two to get the best use of space. --Minx (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I'm going to redo the images for the fossils and get them all the same size for consistency. Hopefully get that sorted by next week.--Minx (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also just realized that this layout can be used for furniture series, but the increased columns may cause it to come out wierd. Can anyone upload a sample furniture pic to test it out? T.testLP(talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a few from the Balloon series for you --Minx (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- This layout should work well up to 3 columns. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the current image-and-name-in-one-column one. As the tables don't really present any important information other than the price, we can have a larger image will let give people a preview of fossils they hadn't obtained. T.testLP(talk) 08:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I typically prefer a combined name/image column, as it saves horizontal space, but that's not the problem here. I edited the page to show two alternatives: Amber at the the top of the current table shows a better version of what I started. The new table I created (above the current one) goes back to the three image layout. It saves vertical whitespace, but the images have to be squished. Scrolling will be required unless you for the images to 25 or 50px. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)