User talk:Proton

Easy There, Champ.....

Hey there. Quick question for ya; I'm a little hesitant about the new gold/plat tango icon's you've uploaded. I don't see it as a bad thing, please don't get me wrong, but what worries me is the gold spacing in some of the templates that you've been changing. I just forsee way too many changes for a simple aesthetic change to an icon, which, to my mind, is a bit too much work for not enough benefit. Could you weigh your opinion on this either here or at the Currency talk page? Many thanks. -- Traveler (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm an idiot. Not the templates, but the pages themselves. Although I don't know if templates are affected. -- Traveler (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for making a note on my Talk Page. I responded to your question on Talk:Currency :). —Proton 06:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold spacing

Could you explain why you think it's better to use a thin-space in front of the gold icon instead of changing the {{gold}} so that it adds the appropriate amount of spacing?

• Most contributors are not going to remember (or even know) to add a thin space.
• When editing, it's easier to read {{gold}} than  {{gold}}.

Similarly, why are we changing 5,000 → 5 000? The current convention is widespread; shouldn't the community discuss it before changing it? Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be no spacing directly preceding platinum/gold icons; I have only been including thin-spaces for digit grouping. Though I feel thin-space digit grouping is easier on the eyes and more internationally appropriate, you are correct in that it should not be changed without consensus. I will make no further changes to digit grouping. —Proton 07:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I am curious about your thoughts behind these changes. I believe that conventions are only as good as the reasons supporting them; I also believe in sticking to a convention until we have good reason to do so. Thanks for your time.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As my final word for the night, I have always had a pet peeve against the use of commas separating thousands. Then again, I deal with numbers all day, and such mole hills can seem like mountains from that perspective. G R E E N E R 08:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth the effort to change all those uses to {{cost}}, so we can centralize those decisions. poke | talk 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that better, since that also applies to as well as .  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost template

Hey, why does it have to be a single way? --JonTheMon 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be. However, it is cleaner when there is a single way, keeps things more uniform, and also drastically decreases the length of code necessary to handle the parameters. In addition, my little universe likes to think that, someday, there will be a program sifting through all the wiki code for all of the instances of the Cost template, and that program will be easier to write if the template is just {{cost|value}}. It's just good practice, and there is no visual impact. Thanks for posting on my talk page :). —Proton 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But isn't flexibility just as important? And honestly, looking at the diff, the code lengths are about the same. --JonTheMon 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the code in the articles, but the code in the template itself, which is essentially copy-pasted every time {{Cost}} is used anywhere. As far as flexibility goes: sure, flexibility is nice, but is it really that useful that "000" can be replaced with "|0"? There is no reason whatsoever that all of the values can just be a single gold value instead of explicitly-noted platinum/gold digit arrangements, and when they are arranged in such a way, it is difficult to perform math on the base value (if such was desired). —Proton 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of how templates work. If you look at the diff here, you'll see that the old code (on the right) is actually less bulky than the new code. And in case you didn't try, the old code works the same way that a call to your new code would. --JonTheMon 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. The new code I created inserts a thin space for digit grouping when the platinum value is 1 000 or greater. If the code included that feature and the dual-value input method, the code would be far larger. If the thin space really isn't necessary (which I suppose it isn't, but it was aesthetically pleasing), it can be removed to trim down the code significantly. —Proton 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, there aren't that many values over 1k plat, and at that point, I think the thin space actually looks worse than not having a space (or the alternative ','). --JonTheMon 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I never did figure out, will you be leaving the template as dual-parameters? --JonTheMon 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) Fair enough; if/when I reinstate my rewritten template, I'll leave out the thinspace. As far as the dual-parameter bit, I'm in the middle of a massive overhaul changing each use of the template over to single-parameter. Should I ever complete the task, I'll make the template single-parameter only. In the meantime, I won't change it from dual-parameter. —Proton 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think I would actually get through all that. Well, everything's been updated to use the single-parameter format, and I have reinstated my re-re-written code :D. —Proton 21:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Do you really need to change all instances, even in user pages to the cost template? --JonTheMon 03:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For non-user pages, yes. There is something to be said for uniformity, and if someone decides to make a change to how costs are displayed, they won't have to sieve through the thousands of instances of {{plat}}/{{gold}} that I am doing now. For user pages, no, I do not need to, but there is no adverse effect to doing so. —Proton 03:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that your edits step a bit over the "maintenance" line according to GWW:USER --JonTheMon 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I edited only a single person's page, there would be no problem. The degree to which I am editing each page is identical, and equally minor. Were a user to go to his or her page, he or she would probably not even notice any change was made, other than being notified of the change via e-mail. A minor change that is widespread is not a major change, just widespread. —Proton 03:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But why do you need to change user pages? Is it that absolutely horrific for users to use the gold and plat templates? --JonTheMon 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...it peeves me... —Proton 03:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And it's their page. --JonTheMon 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Space instead of comma

Why are you changing commas in figures to spaces (e.g. 5,000 → 5 000 faction)? Since commas are used in-game, we should also do the same. --Silver Edge 03:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my inner mathematician being proactive and making digit grouping easier on the eyes and slightly more internationally accessible. I stopped doing that though, after someone else mentioned that it oughtn't be changed. If you'd like to set it back, feel free; there were only a couple pages I changed. —Proton 04:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Align

Are you sure you also want to change the alignment for costs? I think we went through some discussion about that, but I can't quite remember where. Also, if you're making such large-scale changes, inserting other changes with that w/o making any comments about it might not be the best plan. --JonTheMon 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I want to change the alignment for costs. One of the joys of the new icons is that both Platinum and Gold have the same image dimensions, so they can easily be aligned together. It is jarring when running your eyes down the costs and there is a sudden offset because for some reason platinum was aligned left instead of right. Most everything else in the armor tables is aligned; I see no reason for currency to be misaligned with itself just because one type is worth more than the other. The currency designs are stark enough that one would not misread one for the other just because they were aligned (at least, no more than one might confuse a wood planks for iron ingots). —Proton 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But you should probably run it by the community/make a note of it before continuing. --JonTheMon 05:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of disturbing that, to me, the amount of time spent doing ridiculous amounts of monotonous work seems small in comparison to waiting around for others to approve of something. Where might I go to say "hey I'm doing this"? (Also, for reference, I do not have any problem going through the process of systematically undoing anything I've done, so long as there is sufficient opposition to a movement I have enacted.) —Proton 05:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proton, full kudos for diving right into this icon remake, but a few hints that have been posted may not have been explicit enough. I would liken much of this wiki to be like a giant Quaggan. We mean well, we're generally quite nice, and we just want to go about our business, documenting the game. When there's a "bigger" change that happens, especially one that dominate the Recent changes page, we can get our hackles up a bit as we ask ourselves, "Who ordered this?"

By no means am I judging the value of what you're doing, but I guarantee that if you took a bit of time to lay out the project somewhere, perhaps with some examples on a page in your user-space (User:Proton/Cost template?), it would be a bit more conducive to the rhythm and flow of this lumbering giant of a wiki. G R E E N E R 05:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."— δ(x) 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion about the nature of my mind and motivation (or lack thereof), but frankly, this is one of the only ways I can contribute at all. In a few days, I probably won't even be looking at the wiki. My motivation to tirelessly do things is limited by time, and when I am able to run through thousands of instances of templates and replace them with a unified format, I want to be able to do that as soon and quickly as possible so that I can do it for the maximum amount of time. The last thing I want is to run out of steam when I've converted only a third of the armor pages because I spent four days waiting for the Quaggan to give me the go-ahead. Again, I have no problem going through and systematically reverting everything that I have done if the community appears to be one-sided on the matter; I have the motivation to tirelessly undo myself, if necessary. —Proton 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Jon pointed out other members of the community DID take the time to have the discussion and come to an agreement about how we wanted the Cost template to align. It really isn't up to you to just decide to change it without any input from the rest of us. Everyone else has been trying to be nice an politically correct here, but I'm not gonna bother. This is a community based site, run on discussion and consensus. Either get with the program or not. Stop making changes to one of the most used templates on this wiki without so much as a by your leave from the rest of the community. Clear enough? -- Wyn talk 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Indentation Reset) I think you may be confusing terminology. My changes to the {{Cost}} template were negligible; this "alignment" thing Jon is talking about is the left-justification of Platinum pieces in armor tables (I was right-justifying them to line up with the Gold piece entries, which are right-justified). The {{Cost}} template and the alignment are two completely separate issues. However, I have now left-justified all platinum costs in armor tables that I have edited. I hope this is satisfactory. —Proton 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I fully support Proton's right-alignment. It looks horrible right now. — δ(x) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that previous discussion with the alignment was here when ariyen was trying to do it Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Armor_art_articles#Materials. I also support the right alignment. It just looks nicer to me. --Lania 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcomed to help me with my sandbox in fixing up all the armor pages and getting consensus, the quicker the better and I prefer team projects. Just have to change a piece to what Wyn had mentioned in the Materials section. Kaisha 05:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost template changes

Don't just test on the main version. Test your changes elsewhere (like a sandbox in your userspace) before just making random changes to the main version. --JonTheMon 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Derp, my bad >.<. I will do so in the future. —Proton 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost changes on Armor

I know you got fed up and left, but why did you change less than half of the armors to cost of which made things less consistent with each other ? Kaisha 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I support your idea to make things more consistent. However, Proton hasn't contributed in 3 months; I think you are probably better off taking one of two courses:

1. Be bold and reverse Proton's actions.
2. Double-check with the wiki community to see which version people prefer.

(1) is much easier/faster. However, I prefer (2), if for no other reason than proceeding without consensus was largely what honked ppls off about Proton's changes in the first place. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I always did think it mildly humorous when I made a change without asking, and then it ended up sticking because no consensus could be reached to change it back (c.f. {{cost}}). In the case of {{cost}}, however, Kaisha seems to have taken the initiative and reverted it to its previous form. JonTheMon mildly chided her for doing so without bringing it up to anyone, but—ironically—once again no consensus was reached to revert the reversion. Also, nice timing with these comments; it's my birthday today :). —Proton 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted you on some of the Armor pages of which there's been no discussion on your changes in the first place. Most of the armor pages consisted of Plat/Gold of which is actually simpler and well.. less kilobytes. I have asked for people's opinons on which to use. However, for me, it's easier to do 10 plat and not 10000 I can get lost on the 000s and wonder do I have 3 0s after the 10 or not? Some that can edit fast (like me sometimes), can make a mistake and not realize it. It could even be like that for a while. So, while I'm okay with you changing cost it's self. I'm not too thrilled on you having made changes to pages - Armor pages, without consultation with others. Kaisha 00:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, one must question your quality as an editor if you can't take the time to tell the difference between three and four zeroes in a number. Something to keep in mind. That said, I will oblige to your request. —Proton 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I can. I'm just giving kinda an example of a possibility. I will say I've had people at their companies mess up with the zeros, etc. It's annoying when you say 5 zeros and they do like say 4 and it don't work - and they blame the person on the phone. Just an annoyance imo. Kaisha 02:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)