Talk:Item Template/Archive 5/21/2008

Statistics
Per the discussion between myself and Karuberu, I agree with him on the grounds that there should be distinction between the display of Armor(displayed with brackets) and Weapons/Other Items(displayed parenthetically). This should also be reflected on the Item Template Guide as well. --Charitwo 19:05, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

I believe this is too difficult to incorporate into the Item Template itself. I can put a note on it in the How to Use guide, and you can feel free to change the existing armor items to use the brackets, but I think it would just make this template too messy to include it. It already doesn't include details about how to use the template for non-armor and non-weapon items, so I think I'll just add a note to the guide and a hidden note in the code of this template about armor using brackets instead of parathetics. --Chrisjander 19:42, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

References in both the guide and the template have been added. --Chrisjander 20:02, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that the brackets look better and are more correct (plus it's already being used on many Armor Set pages), but just haven't been using them because of the need for the awkward NoWiki tags. But if people think it looks so much better with brackets, good luck with the tedious task of changing almost every armor piece :P --Eithin 04:34, 8 May 2007 (CDT) It's not really about changing all of the pages at once, but about changing them slowly over time, without people reverting your edits. Really, the best way to go about things would be to use the armor template and create similar templates for the other item types (Template:Weapon exists, but is locked and outdated). ~ Karuberu 16:55, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

The Stackable section says if it doesn't stack, to omit the line, however I've come across, and seen it edited in the fashion that if it doesn't stack, it says Not Stackable. Which is it? -- 09:30, 14 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I hadn't noticed this comment until now. I think the line should be included for "misc items", while left off on weapons, armor, etc (if not needed). I know I'd want to see "Not Stackable" on the page if I was wondering wether or not to leave a lot of room when farming something or when browsing for food. That's pretty much the way it is right now, but some clarity would be nice. ~ Karuberu 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, not sure how to word it in the template though. -- 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "If an item stacks, enter the number here, otherwise put Not Stackable. Remove this line for armor and weapons that do not stack." Will that work? ~ Karuberu 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chocobo Digging
The bore and burrow notes need to be updated (possible templated, like monster notes) to the new, colored dot version used on the Chocobo Digging and zone pages. ~ Karuberu 15:52, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

How to Obtain
Forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds as a relatively new editor. I apologize that I only recently came across this template after I already had made a number of edits to pages as I went through the items that can be obtained via Chocobo Digging. (I know, I know, /slap .) A number of the formatting edits I made were, thankfully, in line with what the Item Template suggests, but others were made based on pages that did not follow everything properly.

Comparing the template to the formatting standards I based my edits upon, there were several things I wanted to point out that could be potentially useful changes:

1) Merchants
 * (Minor) Under the Location heading, the position is not surrounded by parentheses, but the standard convention in the game when using   is to display the position as (?-?). Many pages already do it this way, which is not to say it needs to be changed, but I wanted to confirm that you really did not want to use parentheses for some reason before I go off and edit any more pages in this manner.


 * Under the Type heading, some pages go on to list additional information.
 * For example, Regional Merchants are followed by their region. This is usually on a separate line in italics, but I think linking to just the name of the region afterward in parentheses &mdash; Regional Merchant (Zulkheim) &mdash; should be sufficient and would save on some vertical space in the table.


 * Another case is when an item is not always available. Some items are only sold by the vendor when the nation is first or second in conquest &mdash; could be denoted as Standard Merchant (2nd+) &mdash; while others can only be purchased by citizens of that nation and only when they are first in conquest &mdash; could be denoted as Standard Merchant (Windurst citizen, 1st).


 * I realize this is adding more data to the tables, and for people working at lower resolutions it would probably cause that particular column to be broken up into multiple lines. I also realize this data is already included on the merchant pages (or should be) and is just a click away. However, I believe it's useful information to have on the item page as well, similar to how the Used in Recipes and Obtained From Desynthesis sections work: I shouldn't have to go to every merchant's page for a particular item to see whether I can buy it from them.

2) Chocobo Digging (and other Hobbies)
 * (Minor) Many zones used the term Abundance in place of Rarity, which is why I've been using it on item pages as well. This is just a semantics issue, really. When I looked up both words on Merriam-Webster Online, rarity was only used to describe items that are rare, while one of the uses of abundance demonstrated that it could be used for both plentiful items and rare items, which is the range we're dealing with in this column. Not something I want to quibble about, just wanted to explain the reasoning behind why I was making that change. I can revert to Rarity if that is the preferred heading.


 * (Minor) I never understood why this type of table has more cellpadding than the other tables, and using the indents at the beginning of lines only adds more padding to the cells. It also encouraged some people to add multiple zones within those two cells instead of creating new rows for each zone. I was also splitting each line at 50%-50% width instead of 60%-40%, but that's probably not something that needs to be changed. =) (See Acorn as an example of the formatting I've been using.)


 * (Chocobo Digging only) Up to this point, I had only been putting in the ability key as needed on items and only listed the ones that applied. I would be happy to make a template for it, similar to Template:Monster Notes, and include that on all pages I've already edited. If a template is deemed excessive, should I go back and add in all four conditional dots in a key on every item anyway?

3) Gardening
 * (Minor) Again, this is just a matter of formatting and happens to be the first way I saw it done. I put extra priority on the width of the Pot and Seed columns because they had the potential to contain much wider text than the other three. I also templated the names of the crystals and centered the final three columns. (I guess technically the rows are centered as default, and the first two columns are left-aligned.) You might want to note somewhere what to do with the single-crystal seeds as well as when no crystal is used; I've seen "---" under Crystal 2 for the former and "None" in either column for the latter. (See Fire Crystal as an example of the formatting I've been using.)

4) BCNM/ENM/KSNM
 * The Level Cap heading seems a bit ambiguous. Some people interpreted it as just containing the level cap (e.g. Level 30), while others put all three restrictions in that column separated by commas (e.g. Level 30, 30 minutes, 6 members). I came across a page that broke the "restrictions" into three separate columns, which is the formatting I started applying to other pages as I went along. I think there was also a row above those that indicated they were all restrictions, similar to the Price row on top of the Merchants table, but I left that off; it could be added back on if the current headings aren't clear enough. (See Adaman Ore for an example.) If you'd rather stick with the current three-column format, perhaps the heading should be changed to Restrictions so that it encompasses all three. *shrug*


 * (Minor) It seems like there should be a distinction between a "cap" of Level 75 and "No Level Restriction". I know there are cases when you can enter an uncapped KSNM without buffs being removed, but there are other cases (Assault comes to mind for me) where your level isn't restricted but buffs are removed as they would be if there was a restriction. Do any uncapped BCNM/KSNM/ENMs work in this manner?

In the case of 3) and 4) and potentially 1) if the additional information is added, I noticed some follow-up edits that made the table widths wider for some pages. If 60% is not sufficient for lower resolutions, that could easily be bumped up to 70% or 80%. (Even though that's crazy wide at the resolution I'm running at. XD)

I'm sorry for taking up so much space with all of this, but this seemed to be the appropriate place to do it. I realize this is a lot of information to read through, and I tried to whittle it down as much as possible. I tend to be verbose when explaining things if I'm not careful... Mostly, I want to avoid making changes that don't conform to the template and make more work for the people who revert it back to what it's supposed to be. I really hope I don't come across as being arrogant, sounding like I think my way is the best way and that you should conform your template to my wishes; that's certainly not my intention. I would appreciate it if at least the non-minor issues could be considered, or at least an explanation could be given as to why they should not be changed.

Also, disregard the darker color changes I made to the blues on some tables in the examples I linked to. That was the color I saw being used on zone pages and some item pages, so it's one of the things I put in to be changed for each page I edited for the sake of consistancy. In the future, I'll stick to #e3e6ff;. ^^;

Thank you for your time. =) --Tinuvael 13:03, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Whew... that's a lot... let's strike out parts as they're resolved.

1) Merchants
 * The standard/guild merchant revisions are mostly by rogue editors (not to say it's not a welcome change, it just hasn't been discussed before). Personally, I like the way those pages are, with the extra info in italics on a new line; they conforms with the unwritten "notes and supplemental text should be in italics" rule.

2) Chocobo Digging (and other Hobbies)
 * I have no idea why the Hobbies tables has the indent... never understood it either.
 * Two templates could be created and used for the chocobo digging; one for the icons used in the table (one template with multiple  arguements could be used), the other for the explanations.

3) Gardening
 * Your formatting for the gardening table looks good to me, though some may want "None" in italics.

4) BCNM/ENM/KSNM
 * I'm for splitting the table up into more sections; if the information is going to be there, it sould be organized.

~ Karuberu 15:55, 2 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks for taking the time to go through all of that. =)


 * I'll concede on the convention for adding additional information to the merchants. It might add more space to the table, but it follows what is done in other places on the wiki. When I get back to editing pages (probably Monday), I'll go fix the ones I've already done, provided I get the go ahead to continue doing so.


 * I like your idea for an additional template to be used within the tables themselves. Right now, there are only four conditionals: Burrow, Bore, Egg Helm, and Night. The only others I can think of (Crystals/Clusters/Elemental Ores) are complex enough that I didn't add them to the tables, so I don't think we need to worry about Weather/Moon Phase to be added in.


 * Putting "None" in italics in the Gardening tables makes perfect sense. Is there something better to use other than "---" that would be more consistent as well? "None" wasn't being used in that case, since it's on rows for single-crystal seeds.


 * --Tinuvael 20:38, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

For those with single crystal feeds, keep the "---" as opposed to None. This indicates that there is no second feeding, rather than "don't feed it a crystal". Go ahead with making some templates for the Chocobo Digging section, as well as formatting pages to use the standard of "second italicized line" for Regional Merchant info. The italicized region name could use with some linking, so link the whole phrase to the region (e.g. Zulkheim Region). -- 23:26, 2 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I created Template:Chocobo Digging and Template:Chocobo Digging Notes tonight and learned all about ParserFunctions! :D I went ahead and tested them out in the main Chocobo Digging page. I'll go back through all the zone and item pages soon. --Tinuvael 01:35, 3 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Good work. I had forgotten about ; it works much better there than  s would. My only complaint is that   is a little lengthy to write; I would have chosen a shorter name for the template (Digging,CD, etc.). As for the Gardening tables, a mdash (&mdash;) would look more professional than several dashes, and would take up the same space. ~ 15:01, 3 June 2007 (CDT) Karuberu 15:01, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Line Breaks
All the need to be changed to , the forward slash is mainly used for XML and serves no purpose here at the wiki. is perfectly acceptable. -- 16:54, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. ~ Karuberu 17:11, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

It doesn't really matter. It's nothing something we should be cleaning up one way or the other. 22:19, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Used in Quests
I think the change to "Used in Quest" should be reverted; it creates unneccesary irregularity between pages (not worth it for a singularity/plurality issue). I wouldn't be against it if we had bots that could change it easily and quickly, but changing it manually is far too slow and would make the wiki look dirty for too long. ~ Karuberu 17:22, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

We're already making a ton of edits (linking most of the items in Other Uses section, adding the AH template), so what's one more little thing. With all of these differences, what's one more little change? With all the pages we haven't changed, that makes them look a whole lot more dirty than the absence of one "s". -- 17:26, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but now we'll have to go back and change all the pages we've already changed. The idea of "starting over" is not a good one. ~ Karuberu 17:34, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree, it was fine the way it is, both myself and Karuberu have collectively changed thousands of pages to include Quests. I do not like this change at all. -- 17:43, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Then don't change it, no one's making you edit. I'm going to pluralize items used in multiple quests, and get rid of the "s" on singles. -- 18:02, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

The colons should not be bolded. -- 14:20, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * We've always bolded the colons. The ones you find without them aren't supposed to be that way. -- 14:23, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I am aware, I am saying it looks wrong and needs to be changed. -- 14:24, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I disagree. You'll have to give more of a reason than "I don't like it" in order for them to be changed. ~ Karuberu 14:37, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Because it's more presentable. Note the comparision:

Not to mention it's part of proper usage. Not only does it looks more presentable when viewed on a page, the usage of which is more proper without it being part of bolded text. Actually, the same argument could be put towards other sections of the template as well. -- 14:57, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

First, when you presented "proper usage" you should specify which usage you're refering to. I'm going to assume, because you didn't specify, that you meant its to present a list, at which point, I'd disagree with you. If you're putting the colon there to present a list, you'd want the colon to be visible. When you bold the preceding text, but not the colon, the colon might as well not be there for all the visibility it gets. -- 15:10, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure what kind of monitor you're using, but I can see them just fine. And the only example on that article in which the colon is bolded is in a conversation between one or more people. -- 15:18, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

There doesn't appear to be anything on that page expressly stating whether or not a colon should be bolded when the preceding text is bolded. Unless you're talking about the "syntactical-deductive: introduces..." and other lines, which would just be an example of Wikipedia's formatting, not FFXIclopedia's. ~ Karuberu 15:15, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * That is not "Wikipedia's formatting" that is called grammar. -- 15:18, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Bolded text would be typesetting or formatting, not grammar. Unless you have a written rule for this situation, I doubt you'll be getting anywhere. ~ Karuberu 15:28, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * You looked up the Wikipedia standard for bolded text, which is contradictory to your above comment. I cited the article on colon usage, not the article on Wikipedia's standard for bolding text. -- 15:34, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I was using that article to support my "bold is typesetting" statement, not as an example. And I don't know where you've been, but we're talking about bolding, not colon use. If you were talking about removing or moving the colon, that would be colon use. We're talking about whether or not the colon should be bold or not. ~ Karuberu 15:41, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I misunderstood. While typesetting is a way to better present text or material, it was already stated that they are perfectly visible without. Now, one could very easily argue that bolding the subsections make them look more presentable. Compare NPC Sell Price vs. NPC Sell Price. There is no argument there, however with the colon is it not needed. The usage of which is more proper without the bold emphasis. See my many references to citing the examples used on the page about the colon. -- 15:46, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * It's your opinion that they are perfectly visible without. Both Chrisjander and myself think they're too faint to be readily notice without bolding (in this situation) and should be bolded. Your link doesn't prove anything; it describes how to use the colon, not how to format it (look at the information, not the page). I'm sorry, but it is a matter of opinion, unless you show some additional information. ~ Karuberu 16:01, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Don't tell people to give up on things just because you say so, we're still willing to hear an argument, just not repetition. -- 16:10, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, regardless of whether you can see it or not, bolding a colon has nothing to do with "proper usage", it has to do with wiki standards. Our standard is "bold the colon". -- 15:25, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * With all due respect, this sounds a lot like you don't feel the need to debate any longer so you're laying down a resolution which suits your views. Granted, being an administrator, it technically is your right to do so, however you are part of the debate which makes it seem biased. I am trying to change the standard for certain usage, as mentioned above, I am well aware it's the current standard in which I am presenting a means for change, and by "standard" I mean how it's presented in the templates, and not part of an article on usage. The examples in the article are clear, as I mentioned above the only one in which the colon is bolded is the one with a conversation between one or more persons, the rest are not. -- 15:34, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Right now you're arguments are: 1) I think it looks better; and 2) Wikipedia does it this way. We disagree with you. -- 15:57, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Your argument of saying "Wikipedia does it this way", that is incorrect. That is not "Wikipedia's way". That is the gramatically correct way to do it. It is an article on punctuation, not a Wikipedia standard. Just because something is at Wikipedia, doesn't make it their way of doing it. If you'd like, I can get the opinions of several scholary sources that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, since you're inclinded to believe anything at Wikipedia is "Wikipedia's way of doing things". Perhaps you should check the references cited at the bottom of the page. -- 16:02, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Just to add my two cents in... because, well I can. For the record, I will state that I am using a completely different monitor than Chrisjander and a different Resolution as well. Now saying this, I am letting you know that while yes, I can see the colon when it is not bolded, it is considerably lighter. Bolding said colon makes it considerably easier for me to see it. While I understand Charitwo's point of view completely, I was an old Grammar Nazi and like things done correctly, I still think, that we should continue Bolding the colon because it does make it easier to read/view and emphasizes that it is in fact a colon representing a coming list rather than just making it there. I would think that we would want to make it as viewable as possible for everyone which Bolding allows rather than follow some standard that may not be best for the given purpose. --Nynaeve 16:05, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Not to mention it's not grammar, but typsetting. Grammar is "way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax" (source), while typsetting, or typography, is the "look and feel" of the text itsef (the font, style, weight, size, etc.). ~ Karuberu 16:24, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Nothing in that article mentions anything about whether a colon should be bolded or not. Nothing. So the only thing to assume is that you're referring to the fact that the editors at wikipedia aren't bolding them in that article. If you find a source that says "colons shouldn't be bolded" I'd take that into consideration. -- 16:08, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Just my 2 cents, but I can barely see the non-bolded colons in the example above. I mean, I know they are there, but, they are very small and all but invisible without the bolding. --User:NoOneLeft 23:17, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Merchants
What's the standard for listing merchants that sell an item? Do we list every merchant, including the guild merchants that only sell said item when it's been sold to them by a PC, or is that section only reserved for the merchants that always have an item in stock (disregarding special cases like Conquest or Allegience)? --Tinuvael 13:00, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

All merchants, including guild merchants. Mainly because we don't have a complete enough list of which items are fully stocked, and which aren't. Although, for the items that we know aren't stocked regularly, we could make a note on the item page in the merchant listing. -- 13:17, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I was using FFrecipe as my resource as I went through the pages. So in the cases where I find that an item is not normally stocked by the Guild Merchant, and the Wiki reflects this data on the merchant's page, I should still add it to the item page under Merchants? --Tinuvael 13:21, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, though a note stating that item is not restocked may be appropriate. -- 14:25, 26 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Does this seem reasonable: Dhalmel Mantle Merchants? --Tinuvael 14:40, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Capitalize "not" and it'll look good. -- 14:53, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

A lot of items have "varies" written as their price, which seems inadequate to me. Crafting materials such as Linen Thread should, at least, have a price noticed that gives you an idea of the cost. Even though guild prices fluctuate due to stock/demand prices can be listed more accurately
 * Trente 16:54, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Go ahead. -- 16:59, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Got me an idea to throw out there. What I am curious about is including a link to outside information that is still relevant and in this example, up to (usually) 15-30 minutes accurate. Could a template be created that sends the user to the relevant ffxiah item page depending on a drop down menu choice of servers so not only could they check the normal NPC merchant "Sell to" price (which is already included in most cases) but now they can check what the item is listing for on the auction house in near real-time from another website devoted to just this endevor, ffxiah.com). I'm not talking about a huge template but rather a small change to the "Other uses" area of the item template itself. What I was thinking was a drop down menu of servers and a check box to indicate that the item you're interested in is stacks or not and a go button. Seems to me that this should be feasible; The ffxiah item ID and stack/non-stack identifier are both listed in the url of the page once you've navigated to it and through a little digging, server IDs for ffxiah items are easily obtainable as well. elements are identified by ffxiah.com by number so some level of programming seems to be necessary here. Item ID's are numerical and are the same for stacked and non stacked items, the way they differentiate between stack/non-stacked items is by indicating if the item is stacked or not in a separate url element. Of course prices are different in the AHs across the different servers so identifying the server is also necessary. By default if you're already set to a server, or haven't gotten that far and the site defaults to Bahamut server, the server ID element is not displayed. changing this once you're viewing an item will add the element "sid" and a number that corresponds to the server you are now looking at.

Unfortunately, I'm a so called "Rogue Editor" on the wiki and add/change information as it changes in the game so other users can benefit from it as well, but minor changes are all I've learned so far. Major edits that would have a sweeping effect across a whole genre of pages is not exactly something I could tackle on my own, nor would I try here without the consent of the "powers that be". I've not figured out how to make a template but would love to learn and see this idea incorporated into the wiki as well. Seems only fair to reciprocate as ffxiah pages have a link that directs their users to us at the appropriate wiki page for more info, why can't we have more info from an outside source for our users? --Ffxi chimera 03:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:AH
Should incorporate the new way of noting AH categories in the template. -- 22:15, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Guild Points Value
I've noticed that many pages have the guild points per item and maximum points listed, but don't have the number of items needed to reach maximum guild points points. This is definately useful information to a crafter, so to help with adding it, I think we should template the "Guild Points Value" line (it will also help standardize the line, which varies between pages). See Template:Guild Points Value as an example. ~ Karuberu 23:29, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I think this is a pretty good idea. There is a lot of variety in the Other Uses section, and I have slowly been updating when I can.  I really like the template though, and I would be willing to help update it.  23:52, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I have to agree. That was one of the things I still had to go to Somepage for because I am far to lazy to calculate out my own Max. So, the usage of this template on craftable items, at least IMO, would be beneficial. -- 07:04, 16 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Seems like a good addition to me. -- 16:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

NPC Sell Price for GM gear
I've asked Gani about it from previous interviews and he said they removed the section about GM gear and the GM's themselves "cannot say". Given that they are as such GMs Only. I was wondering if they even have the "ability" to be sold to NPCs at all. Because only equipment in the top row (Weapons/Sub/Range/Ammo) are Rare/Ex, everything else is not. It brought to mind the question of 1)Whether it could be traded to a normal player 2)Whether a GM or a normal player would have the ability to sell it to an NPC.

There was minor controversy on one Judge article of whether it could or could not, and it would be nice to have a standing one way or the other. -- 18:36, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Templates
Seeing how well Furnishing worked out, I think we should give Armor and Weapon a try. They both automatically format the information and allow for easy changing later, but Weapon is especially useful: it automatically calculates Damage Per Second and TP Per Hit (using the correct calculations based on the delay). ~ Karuberu 20:55, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I think these deserve another look. Originally there were many coding and ease of use problems when we first tackled this problem, but now that we're up to using ParserFunctions, I think we're ready to consider these two again. -- 14:47, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Minor Alignment Changes
Since apparantly it seems like an issue now, would it be a valid reason to remove the align="left" from some of the container tables that outline the ~6 major sections of the item template (Statistics/Other Uses/Synthesisx2/Desynthesisx2)? My main reason to remove them is just a complexity issue. Save a little bandwidth here and there and less process of code. It's unnecessary because a cell's natural horizontal alignment is to the left, unless explicitly defined as "center" or "right" for that cell/row. Would a change in the template make this more agreeable? 06:29, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
 * The same reason that I remove rowspan="1" from sections because the default rowspan is 1.
 * Same reason why we remove Guild Points Value from items which are not synthed.
 * It's the same reason many people remove comments from templates.
 * I totally agree; Why waste space when you don't have to? I don't see a good reason not to change the template. ~ Karuberu 17:15, 8 September 2007 (CDT)


 * The "space saved" is so negligible I don't really see why it matters, I'm so used to |width="50%" valign="top" align="left"| it's second nature. The day the wiki suffers because of an align="left" is the day cows fly. It's not necessary to be grasping at straws here. -- 17:23, 8 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Have to agree w/ Chari. . . Formating wise - its worthless - pointless even to go through all those pages to remove the above coding... Seems a superfluous way to save space when we are moving to a new server with enough space to cover it all. -- 18:04, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, you guys always surprise me. Try to make any revisions or improvements to old stuff and it's only the same "it's how we've always done it!" business. That's a very poor reason to oppose something such as this. If you don't want to change the pages to save space, then don't, but don't get in the way of progress. I apologize for the tone, but this kind of stuff gets old after a while. ~ Karuberu 19:30, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not really an improvement, and it's not a poor reason. Like I said, it's not "saving space", all it's doing is making things difficult for editors who prefer it this way. And by changing it, it would require changing thousands of pages which is also unnecessary. Why are you arguing for menial changes when you could be putting your time and effort into more productive things like formatting item pages, something that makes you a valuable asset here. -- 19:36, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Since it wouldn't be visible, it wouldn't have to be changed when you edit a page. If you find the change to be difficult, then don't change. Just keep doing it the way you've been doing, but don't revert it if you come across a page with the cleaner code. If you absolutely have to have everything the same, we could always use a bot to change it all. ~ Karuberu 19:57, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
 * You're beating a dead horse, and I can't say anything more that I haven't said already that wouldn't make me sound like I'm beating one too. -- 20:01, 8 September 2007 (CDT)


 * This has got to be one of the more pointless debates I've seen. Basically this is a question about whether the code must be identical across pages?  It isn't and it doesn't.  We have routinely "updated" our underlying code when people have come across better/easier ways of coding things.  Some people like and understand some types of code better than other types of code.  So be it.  The templates exist to make sure that people know where to look for certain information.  So whether or not we choose to update the template itself, people should not be undoing an invisible change purely on the basis of the template.  Nor should people be changing invisible code to something not in the template.  As for the specific changes discussed here - they seem fine but I am not 100% convinced yet.  The only question in my mind is whether it makes sense to keep it in in case a bot would later be needed to change "left" to "right"?  Is there any way that could be needed down the line? -- 20:45, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * My two main points in protesting the change are as such that changing it solely based on "saving space" isn't good enough reason, because space isn't an issue. And who is to say that removing it would cause slight alignment errors in display for certain browsers? Second point is that changing it would cause us have to change all the pages to reflect it, which is also pointless. To be fair, let's say Karuberu makes 10 edits in 35 minutes formatting pages. If he weren't making these invisible changes, and focusing only on the visible stuff, he could double his output. He's only wasting his time removing something that does nothing. I like to think of like looking at the big picture, or thinking outside the box, etc. -- 20:57, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, I'm really surprised any discussion at all came out of this proposal, being just a simple cleanup of code (I didn't expect people to think that it had to be changed on every page). As for bots, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be much difference in programming one to seek out  rather than  . ~ Karuberu 21:06, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Like I said, I am not sure about this one yet. Seems innocent I agree, but I need to think more about some potentials before I weigh in.  I'd think that a bot would pick up a lot of false positives with the shorter code, but that said, I am not sure we'd ever want a bot looking for this anyway.


 * As for productivity of a user. Some are more productive than others based on a number of reasons.  As you know, I use Enfield's parser because IMO, in the same amount of time, I would rather get 20 new items up with 90% of the code, than 2 pages with "perfect" code.  Certain people have watched me for that reason and "corrected" those pages afterwards.  That's ok.  Just as it would be ok for me to have instead decided to make 2 "perfect" (assuming there are perfect pages) pages in the same amount of time, thereby requiring another user to make the other 18 from scratch.  There is no right and wrong here on these points. -- 21:14, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Speaking of which, you know the guy that wrote the parser, yea? Think you could get him to update, many major changes have been made since the latest version. -- 21:22, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I'd rather not get into bots, but you could use the headers in the search to assure that the pages were actually item pages, which would be a good idea regardless of the  being present. As far as unseen consequences go, there are none. Left alignment is the default alignment, so unless the alignment is specified somewhere else on the page or on a style sheet, declaring left alignment is pointless. ~ Karuberu 21:47, 9 September 2007 (CDT)