Talk:Seating

Splitting the page up according to game
Originally posted by K6ka on User talk:ThePeculiarMe:

"That seems like a software limitation. We'll have to split the article up into individual games, like this one. The article was split up according to game. So in this case, there could be a Chair (The Sims), Chair (The Sims 2), and Chair (The Sims 3)... and Chair (The Sims 4) when appropriate. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:12, June 20, 2014 (UTC)"

So the idea here is that we split up the chairs page according to game, in order to add more information about each object without jumping the limit MediaWiki has. Thoughts? --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:14, June 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be fine. Oh, and I see some inspiration here to add up as well. Although, TS3 has more chairs with all the Expansion Packs and Stuff Packs. So, I'll put one object per Packs. And I suggest not all the chairs but the Toilet Bath tub and Hot tub articles to split up if they are in limit.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  13:24, June 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)The page throws a "Node-count limit exceeded" error if there are too many templates on the page. Information about the error: here and here. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:26, June 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd oppose the idea. I see no significance to list every single chair that exists in the game that has no distinction from each other, and basically any other object classes, like fridges, toilets, showers, hot tubs, and so on. They're basically one thing but has many variations. I think listing too many objects makes the article look like a catalog and cluttered. I feel like the article is losing its point.


 * However, I'm not sure which objects may have their variations listed. I feel like objects like guitars, or TVs, or computers, are fine. Probably because the variations aren't too many? Then again, I feel like my judgement is very subjective. I wonder if there's any other solutions while it remains objective. Maybe we could just add the thumbnail to the gallery, without having to describe the details?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  17:52, June 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Would it be like this? If so then I like to support that.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  08:50, June 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably. I still don't know if there are any better ideas though.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!


 * I've been thinking this all over the head. So, the chairs are too many if you compared to the other object category plus the subcategories of the chairs. So, I've been thinking that we will representing 1-2 chairs in each EPs and SPs. Then, in the page layout, I think of this idea:

==The Sims== ===Dining Chairs== Examples of dining chairs in The Sims: *gallery of the dining chairs* ===Sofas=== Examples of sofas in The Sims: *gallery of the sofas* ==The Sims 2== ===Dining Chairs== Examples of dining chairs in The Sims: *gallery of the dining chairs* ===Sofas=== Examples of sofas in The Sims: *gallery of the sofas*


 * Not sure if this will cover it, but what do you think? Also, this means we will have to remove the comfort in some point.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  13:37, July 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it looks neat! For now, I think the most important details that this object should ever have are the names, the EPs, the prices, and possibly the descriptions. Using gallery, it isn't possible to include these details, but I'd take the odds. Using a table is still space consuming, so it might not be an optimal solution either.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  13:55, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

I know there are objections, but I pretty much just split Fireplace up into subpages, since I again broke the technical limit. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:50, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't mind splitting it into subpages. In fact, I kinda like it for objects with too many variations. But I still don't think we should keep using Object for every single thing... It seems overused and redundant.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  17:48, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Placing items into tables
I know that there was a discussion about what to do with this page earlier, but it seems that there was no consensus or even action taken, so I decided to edit it into tables much like Television was done. I am not sure if this is the best way to go, or even if the change should be kept. At least this way, there isn't an excessive error node like there is on Refrigerator. What does everyone this about this edit? -- Icemandeaf (talk) 05:03, March 22, 2016 (UTC)