User talk:SnakeChomp/Formula Formatting test

New Formatting

I wanted to try formatting the formula pages in a way that used the setting group template (the new one I made a while back) to be consistent with all other pages that document game settings. I think it looks ok, but I am worried that the text describing formula components which immediately follows the formula may suffer from a "wall of text" effect. Anyone have any comments?
--SnakeChomp 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Use bullet points to make the individual parameters easier to recognize (you can also use bold text instead of italics, but that's just personal preference). And you could split the list in two, the first part for the parameters from the formula and the second part for the parameters of the parameters above in the list (IsUsingIronSights, IsSneaking, etc.).

--Qazaaq 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The current page (Gun Spread Formula) uses bold instead of italics to begin the component explanation sections, but one of the comments there was that the bold takes attention away from the important bit (which is the "= a + b * c" part after the boldness). I like the bold to add structure as it is easier to spot than italics but somewhat agree that it distracts the eye from what is important.

Anyway I added a few variants of the formula explanation bit for consideration. I definitely don't like the bulleted one as now its just a wall of text with a bunch of dots on the left hand side. In a way, I don't think the bolded version is so bad now that the default game setting values have moved somewhere else; there is less information there to compete with the bolded part for attention. I left the 2nd group italicized just to have that style right next to the bolded one for comparison purposes, I would rather both groups be bolded if I stick with using bold.

Also, I don't mind if anyone else messes around with the testing page, so if you have ideas feel free to add them. It's just a test after all. =)

--SnakeChomp 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having the major components bolded and the minor components italicized doesn't seem so bad, since the bolded components refer to the minor components using italics anyway. Having the whitespace between the groups helps to distinguish them and break up the wall of text with a blank line at least. Perhaps the PerkModifiers bit should be moved into the 2nd group? It follows the "Foo is ..." convention (which the 2nd group uses) and not the "Foo = ..." convention (which the majority of the first group uses).

--SnakeChomp 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)