Template talk:Cost

I got permission from the creator at GuildWiki to copy this over here, but now there seems to be some problem with it.. — Anja 05:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Linky to edit the main article, since it's all cuckoo now. It's probably because of this bug. Hopefully they'll fix it soon. --Dirigible 05:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, that seems to be the same problem. Thanks for pointing it out :) — Anja 06:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Omit gold

Oh god, this template's code brings back memories. Bad ones... Anyway, I noticed just now as I created the page for the merchant Adriana that it actually looks really ugly omitting the gold icon and number when it's 0. I'm wondering, any other significant places that uses this template that might break instead if I were to change it so it doesn't omit the gold icon and value? Unless of course this is the wanted behaviour of the majority. — Galil 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if something could break, but you could also use {{Cost|1|0}} {{Cost|0}} for displaying 1 0.--Fighterdoken 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the look without the gold icon, actually. Looks cleaner to me, plus that I really HATE our gold icon. :P - anja 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Didn't think of that. Though when I wrote it I thought it would be useful being able to do {{Cost|0|1}} to show plat too, but not {{Cost|1|0}} to show gold too. It must've been 4 am or something cause I clearly wasn't thinking straight. ;) Obviously it should be the other way around, but before I fix it, I'm making sure nothing breaks and that it's what the majority wants. — Galil 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any major issues with it not showing, but you have to admit this table looks odd. And if you won't agree, try removing the Lockpick from it. :S — Galil 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Cost}} or {{Gold}} & {{Plat}}?

Well, I am wondering now, what template should be used and when - the {{Cost}} (1 100), or the other {{Gold}} and {{Plat}} templates w/ numbers (1 100)?

Always use {{Cost}}. If you find any place that uses the platinum/gold templates, please replace it (the only exception is in the Currency article, where it notes that 1000 equals 1. —Proton 21:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Omitting Gold, or Not

In Guild Wars, all costs (and other representations of gold value, such as the money held by a character) display the gold portion of a cost, even when equal to zero (e.g. something that costs 1000 gold is always displayed as 1 0). The wiki uses the {{Cost}} template, which omits the gold portion of a cost when it equal to zero (e.g. the aforementioned cost would only be displayed as 1).

I move to redesign the {{Cost}} template to always display the gold portion of costs. It was mentioned over three years ago (as seen above on this talk page) that some tables look strange with gold portions omitted; armor tables are no exception to this. This decreases the complexity of the template code, and some believe that it will make tables more aesthetically pleasing as a result. In addition, one must consider that the creators of Guild Wars likely had reasons behind always including gold portions, and though I do not know precisely what they were I feel that a certain amount of credit should be given to the concept.

When discussing, please clearly note whether you are "supporting", "not supporting", or "undecided" on both of the following elements:

• Armor: Please note your support (or lack thereof) for employing this change to armor tables.
• Other: Please note your support (or lack thereof) for employing this change to all other equipment tables, including weapons, lockpicks, general merchant goods, and so forth.

So, please be civil, concise, and straightforward, and tell all of your friends so a large and fruitful discussion can take place.

For me, Armor: supporting, and Other: supporting. —Proton 02:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Armor and Other supporting. If it makes the wiki look better organized and be aesthetically pleasing then I'm for it. I've noticed where the costs look odd without the gold values displaying, not to mention it is the way it is done in the game itself.--Neithan Diniem 08:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell your friends! :). —Proton 16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll support these changes in any page where cost is displayed. It created more of a continuity between the game and the wiki when displaying the cost information. --Lania 16:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the cost template should *always* show the 0g after the plat. I might possibly accept that as the default, but it must have a way of omitting that. --JonTheMon 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon, have a look: User:Proton/CostTemplateTest. —Proton 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If this goes through (i'm still leery about it), you'd have to add that parameter to all the current pages that need it before switching the template over. And since certain pages don't need it, I don't think you could bot it. --JonTheMon 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am quite aware. Recall that there are still a good couple hundred pages that need to be converted to {{Cost}} in the first place, so I won't have any shortage of work. I don't mind the monotony, remember. —Proton 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really understand how many instances of {{cost}} there are. I personally don't feel that the massive spam to RC is worth a change that offers little to no actual benefit to the content of the wiki. so I have to say not. -- Wyn talk 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am acutely aware of how many instances of {{Cost}} there are, because I have personally done a search for all articles linking to the template and there are about 4000, if I recall correctly. However, I am not sure what is so terrible about having a large amount of identical RC entries. As far as benefiting the wiki, the benefit is that, when someone else wants to go change something that affects 4000 articles, all they have to do is touch the template, instead of 4000 articles. I am willing to do that, even if you are not. —Proton 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Armor+Other: Supporting — δ(x) 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am against this change for more reasons than just the rc spam, for one thing, making changes to a template that is going to affect more than 4000 page at ANY time is going to create a performance problem on the wiki as it bumps the job queue. With the problems the wiki is already experiencing in performance, I don't see a need for this, just as I didn't see a need to change the images (which I hate btw). I don't see there to EVER be a need to change this template unless something about how cost is represented in the game is changed, which it hasn't been in almost 6 years. -- Wyn talk 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, what could make this easy and clear would be to go back to the dual parameter template. ((cost|10000)) would display 10 plat, whereas ((cost|10|0)) could display 10 plat 0 gold. --JonTheMon 05:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The only issue I have with the dual-parameter template is that it is presentational markup instead of semantic markup. The purpose of the {{Cost}} template should be "there is a numerical value here that represents an amount of currency, and this is how that numerical value will be displayed". If it is used presentationally, all the template means is "I'm putting an image next to a number". If anything comes out of this, I really, really want to make sure only single whole numbers are used in this template for the sake of principle. —Proton 16:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this wiki does not now, nor is likely ever to use any semantic extensions I'm not sure how that really matters. -- Wyn talk 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"... for the sake of principle." It is good practice, and there is not a substantial lot against said good practice. —Proton 23:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than on GWW and GW2W, there's really no need to use semantic markup. If it looks the way it needs to when someone visits the page, that's really all that matters. At the moment, the template does that without any changes whatsoever. I'm a big believer in "if it's not broke, don't fix it" and this goes especially for templates that are widely used and well established. I think Jon calls it "don't rock the boat". You still have not convinced me why this is a necessary change when it's going to affect so many pages. -- Wyn talk 23:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The other issue here is: we are here as a resource for the players, not necessarily to be exactly equal to the game. If the game does something silly, we might mention it, but we'll ultimately do what's best for the readers and users. In looking at it further, this falls under that: we represent what it is, but we don't have to exactly follow in-game. --JonTheMon 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the wiki certainly does not need to follow Guild Wars for the sake of following Guild Wars. I'm not using Guild Wars as a reason to make the change, but was making a point that the developers likely had sound reasoning behind their decision, and that that sound reasoning should be acknowledged. Essentially "it can't be that bad of an idea if they're doing it". No, it's not a hard concrete bulletpoint, but it's still something to consider. That's all. —Proton 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget about it. You win. —Proton 02:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Space

I think there should be a space between the number and the plat icon. Kaisha 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to place a space in between the numbers and the icon... without undoing proton's work. Help? Kaisha 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that what everyone wants? I don't think anyone should change this template unless they have engaged a lot of people in discussion and there is strong consensus to do so. User:Proton made some changes very recently and, although lots of people like his ideas, other people were not convinced.

This template is used all over the wiki, so we should be much more careful about changing than others. Also, it's hellishly easy to sandbox it and offer comparisons to people. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was what was the look before his changes, just look at the original of it. Also, it looks like above that the majority was against his changes that he did anyway... Kaisha 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert

So, I don't think the format (omiting 0 gold) or function (dual parameter for plat-gold vs gold-only) was ever really resolved, and at this point I think that proton's might actually be closer to the ideal than the old method. In all honesty, having a plat-gold dual parameter system was a pita, and since his crusade it's been standardized to gold-only. And i'm not really sure if showing the omitted 0 gold is used anywhere. --JonTheMon 04:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

True there, but is there a way of adding a space between the numbers and icons, like the original had? Kaisha 04:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think since this whole brouhaha started with edits w/o any sort of consensus, that you should get some consensus for any further changes (I would like you to revert, personally, since it did work and it does make sense). This template and the icons are two separate issues. --JonTheMon 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But why break the tradition? I'll revert the reversion. As for Kaisha's response here, spaces can certainly be inserted between the values and icons. Would you like there to be spaces? —Proton 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, I think it'd look better on some pages. Kaisha 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is done. If you feel the spaces are too large, consider replacing them with  . If you ever want to change the template in the future, just look for the parts that have {{plat}} and {{gold}} (there's one plat and two gold) which now have a space before each of them, and change the space to whatever you like—including removing them, if desired. —Proton 02:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Really, Appreciate that. Perhaps sometime in the future, I could learn some of the codings like what you know. :-) I'd appreciate that. Kaisha 02:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)