Forum:SH:Changing comic media tables

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. EcksBot (talk) 22:47, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

---

I was wondering if anyone would mind if I changed the way the media tables for comic series' appear. Right now the TPB cover art and release date are in two separate columns, while the omnibus column includes both the cover art and release date. I would like to remove the TPB release date column and simply include it below the cover art like we would do for the omnibus. I think this would make the table look much better. For example:

Table before changes

Issue	Title	Publication date	Trade paperback	Publication date	Omnibus
1	Part I	September 9, 2015[1]	Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Shattered Empire[2]	November 18, 2015[3]	Star Wars: Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Shattered Empire (hardcover) September 13, 2016[4]
2	Part II	October 7, 2015[5]
3	Part III	October 14, 2015[6]
4	Part IV	October 21, 2015[7]

Table after changes

Issue	Title	Publication date	Trade paperback	Omnibus
1	Part I	September 9, 2015[1]	Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Shattered Empire[2] November 18, 2015[3]	Star Wars: Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Shattered Empire (hardcover) September 13, 2016[4]
2	Part II	October 7, 2015[5]
3	Part III	October 14, 2015[6]
4	Part IV	October 21, 2015[7]

Would anyone have an issue with me making these changes? I'm not asking for help, I'm happy to do it all myself, I just don't want to do this for each series and then have someone revert it. Thanks, IPodwithnomusic (talk) 17:50, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

• I have no issue, to answer your question, but I'm thinking that some further expansion could probably be done to these tables. For example, why does it only show the image of the TPB and not the individual comic issues? We could probably work the individual issues in at smaller resolution in a new column. And the TPB and Omnibuses could be formatted identically in the same column as the individual issues instead of putting them in their own columns. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:26, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree it would be nice to add the images for each issue at a lower resolution, however I disagree about putting all the collected editions in the same column. In the longer series' like Star Wars and Darth Vader, a hardcover can include multiple paperbacks and I think the display is much clearer when each format has it's own column. I see someone changed the table on the Star Wars: Shattered Empire page and I really don't like how that looks, now it is very bland with no images and if a hardcover included multiple TPBs it would have no way of showing that. I tried adding the images for each issue in the table below, what do you think of it now? IPodwithnomusic (talk) 13:19, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Table after more changes (Rejected Idea)

Issue	Title	Publication date	Trade paperback	Omnibus
1	Part I	September 9, 2015[1]	Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Shattered Empire[2] November 18, 2015[3]	Star Wars: Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Shattered Empire (hardcover) September 13, 2016[4]
2	Part II	October 7, 2015[5]
3	Part III	October 14, 2015[6]
4	Part IV	October 21, 2015[7]

• I think Table after changes is an improvement over Table before changes—it's a better use of space and makes the whole table more compact. I find Table after more changes a step backward from both: it uses more than twice as much space without adding more value.

  As a reader, I find the value of these tables to be in the information they impart—namely, showing the relationships between individual releases and collections. The cover images are a nice add-on where they don't detract, but they don't convey additional information on the table's primary purpose. Because the collection columns are of necessity taller than the issue columns, the space for adding cover images of the collections is essentially "free": absent the images, that space would otherwise be blank. But adding images that increase the size of the table only serves to obscure the table's purpose.

  As we must cater to readers with all different sizes of screens and windows, it's important to keep summary information as compact as practical. Images of the individual issues' covers is only a tap/click away on each table; the tables themselves don't need them, and IMHO suffer a bit for having them. Asithol (talk) 23:23, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • In the case of Shattered Empire, I don't really see the need to have separate columns for "TPB" and "Omnibus." They both collect the entire miniseries, and they're both TPBs. Also, I had changed Shattered Empire's media section to match the example shown in the LG. - Cwedin^(talk) 23:48, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't like that layout, especially in the example you posted, I think it is messy to have the TPB names in one column and release dates in another when they are all together in the same row. I think each TPB should either have it's own row, or all it's info in one column, but I find having them all together in a single row makes it difficult to read. IPodwithnomusic (talk) 13:40, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of the table with changes. I do not think the more changes should be implemented, meaning, do not include the images of each individual issue. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:08, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think the individual issue images take up too much space, but I really like the "table after changes" version.IPodwithnomusic (talk) 13:37, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
    • Same. I'm cool with the original proposal, don't really care for the second. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:52, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay cool, thanks for the feedback everyone. I'll go through and start updating the tables. IPodwithnomusic (talk) 14:04, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
        • Since this change will require (minor) updates to the LG and promoted articles like Star Wars: Legacy: Fight Another Day and Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi, I would recommend having a formal vote in addition to this discussion. - Cwedin^(talk) 14:27, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
          • Okay thanks for the feedback, I've created a vote. —Unsigned comment by IPodwithnomusic (talk • contribs)