Template talk:ArsMformula: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 10:27, 18 November 2024

Line break after the formula title

I saw User:Mataglap changed the template so that it is on one line only. I think the formula is more legible on multi-line, with a <br> in between to avoid too much space. This especially improve legibility when the formula below its title is on multiple line (e.g., the formula for bonus after an ordeal in The Mechanics of Initiation). In the books, both conventions have been used at different points (ArM5 uses a line break between the title and the formula while most formula are on one line in HoH:M C, for instance). Before doing any more change, however I would however like to have the opinion of the community. What do you think we should do? --Audrey Azura (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2024 (MST)

It's a fair point, thanks for starting the conversation. Formulae are varied enough I'm not sure a simple template is the right path. Perhaps one based on a table? An example is https://www.redcap.org/page/Ars_Magica_5E_Standard_Edition,_Chapter_Nine:_Spells#Level_Guidelines

where first there are two attempts including the template. This weekend I'm going to be spending some time on the Formulae Index, which obviously has a wide range of formulae. I suspect I'll end up with a test page that has two or three template variations so we can see where the actual formula break assumptions in templates.

I would like to suggest that we shouldn't try to emulate the published layout, and need to be careful especially with templates, which don't have any flexibility.

Mataglap (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2024 (MST)

I agree we should not try to replicate the layout of the book, I took it because I found it pretty legible and mentionned it here for reference, not to try to emulate it. Thank you so much for doing tests, I will comment on their discussion page. --Audrey Azura (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2024 (MST)

We're creating a reference document, not a pretty artefact that replicates the result of skilled layout in the printed book. I think we go for legibility and consistency over variation for aesthetics. I don't mind whether we have the line break or not.

NeilNjae (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2024 (MST)

Please take a look at Formulae_Tests to see how some of the more extreme formulae look in a few different ways. Please add any other formula that are out-of-the-ordinary Mataglap (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2024 (MST)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :I would like to suggest that we shouldn't try to emulate the published layout, and need to be careful especially with templates, which don't have any flexibility.
 :[[User:Mataglap|Mataglap]] ([[User talk:Mataglap|talk]]) 19:18, 15 November 2024 (MST)
+::I agree we should not try to replicate the layout of the book, I took it because I found it pretty legible and mentionned it here for reference, not to try to emulate it. Thank you so much for doing tests, I will comment on their discussion page. --[[User:Audrey Azura|Audrey Azura]] ([[User talk:Audrey Azura|talk]]) 10:27, 18 November 2024 (MST)
 :We're creating a reference document, not a pretty artefact that replicates the result of skilled layout in the printed book. I think we go for legibility and consistency over variation for aesthetics. I don't mind whether we have the line break or not.