Template talk:Gem store past offer table row

Date

To display the date in a conistent format, you can use the parser function #time, see mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23time. You could use the same format that is already used in {{Gem Store history table row}}.

{{#if: {{{date|}}}|{{#time: F d, Y|{{{date}}}}} }}

As date input value almost everything is allowed, but again as in the gem store history table row, I would recommend <year>-<month>-<day> as input format, e.g. 2019-01-25. --Tolkyria (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for Your input. I would have left the date values (and there current formats) unchanged but i suppose i can use #time instead. I will format everything F d only though for now since the year will be in the heading already so it would be redundant to have it again in every row and the dates are usually within the same year as well; except those for Wintersday. I suppose i can specify everything in the iso format though - even though <Monthname> <day> is accepted as well - in case the year would be needed in the format after all. Nightsky (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing a date without the year let's me immediately ask: "But which year?"... in my opinion it clarifies more than it disturbes the readability. Furthermore, as you already mentioned, Wintersday most likely will need a year suffix. Hence to avoid additional (and unnecessary complicated) parameters that allows switching on/off of the date, I would recommend (knowning that I repeat myself) to display the year also. But you are the boss, you decide!

Another minor remark, that I think is better to mention now rather than later and have to change it on hundreds of pages: wiktionary:amount vs. wiktionary:quantity. Amount is "not applicable to discrete numbers or units or items in standard English", therefore a more fitting parameter name would be "quantity" or its abbreviation "qty". --Tolkyria (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the date i would say that it should be fine withouth the year, withouth an additional parameter to switch it on and off even. After all no one has complained in the past years about a lack of it but now when i do something with it it is suddenly a problem? Regarding qty over amt i can agree. I only used amt because i wanted to keep parameter names similar to {{Gem store table row}} but if amt is incorrect i don't mind changing it to qty. Then i wonder if i could exchange cost for price as well though while i'm at it to match the columns heading better or would price be the new amt then? Can't tell; rather leave it be. Nightsky (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh indeed, I wasn't aware that there the "amt" parameter is used, but the columns name there is "Qty" which would match my explanation... so, I don't know, perhaps an native english speaker can enlighten us. The cost part seems fine to me. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I would assume that qty is likely correct then, since it's used in the table which is what most people will see; whereas amt is used in the wiki code which most people will probably never see. I agree though; it would be usefull if a native english speaker could shed a light on these matters, both amt vs. qty and cost vs. price. If no one should be able to i suppose going back to it being amt to match the parameters of {{Gem store table row}} would still be an option too, since most people will probably never see it anyways but then it would at least be consistent again and as such less confusing to use even though it might not be a propper english use of it. Nightsky (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)