Forum:CT:Standardizing the use of "Credits" in infoboxes

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Oppose proposal to use {{Cr}} in infoboxes rather than the full word "credits" when listing the cost or value or something. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

---

I noticed that there isn't really a standard when it comes to using the {{cr}} template (which produces this symbol and link: ), especially in the infobox. The infobox of some Featured Articles use it, while others use the full word credits. (Click "Show" for examples) I looked at some Good Articles and they seem just as random.

I think that looks neater and cleaner and would therefore be more appropriate for the infobox where space is very limited. I propose that all infoboxes listing the cost or value of something use the {{cr}} template rather than the full word "credits." The article body can use the entire word.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 00:52, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 00:52, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A casual readers isn't going to know what that symbol means, even with a link to Galactic Credit Standard. If a reader is looking at an infobox and they have to look up what something means, or have to understand that you need to click it to discover what it means, then the infobox is doing a disservice to the reader. So if there was going to be a policy for consistency, I'd say go for credits. Follow the KISS method. But even then, in the absence of any genuine problem, I'd say that's instruction creep and I'd still oppose. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 01:02, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
2. I agree that standardization is needed, but I completely disagree with {{Cr}}'s usage in the infobox. It's just plain ugly. JangFett ^(Talk) 01:14, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
3. Per Yin Yangeth. Cade Calrayn 01:21, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
4. Gonna have to agree. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 01:24, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
5. I really wanted to vote for this proposal, because I agree that looks better – but what if the price of something is listed in a different currency (without a symbol), such as Wupiupi? So, per Brandon's instruction creep. - Esjs (Talk to me) 06:08, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
6. I do like the use of the credit symbol, as it lends a sort of in-universe tie to the infobox. However, it's not immediately apparent, per Brandon, so it's counter-intuitive to use it in the quick-reference section of an article. Furthermore, we still list "Eras", an OOU term, in the infobox, so the infobox isn't even fully IU to start with. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 06:36, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
7. HELL NO. If anything, it should be optional (or even restricted). It may give some sort of "cool" appearance but I'm still very much in favor of simply using the word "credits". In fact, its use in status-articles is quite poor since we're usually required to contextualize, explain and even repeat most concepts so I'm against one where there's just an image with a hidden link. Winterz (talk) 17:13, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
8. Per Jang. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:42, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
9. Unnecessary. Per Brandon. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:17, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
10. Trip391 (talk) 18:19, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
11. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:36, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
12. Sigh. Lowest common denominator time. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:24, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
13. I do distinctly prefer the symbol in most cases because that's how real-world currency figures are usually written and it's how an in-universe Wikipedia, which we try to emulate, would write them. But I agree that is is instruction creep and as such it should be left to the author's discretion. (And yay for Brandon finally voting on something! He's only been around, like, forever? :P)

    Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
    17:39 UTC Wed		June 11, 2014

14. Per above. 1358 ^(Talk) 20:16, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
15. Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:53, June 12, 2014 (UTC)\
16. I would love to use universally but not every price is listed in credits :( --praguepride ^(Talk) 00:57, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
17. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:21, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
18. Currency name should be used, whether its "Credits" or "Wupiupi". As discussed below, i agree "support" should be changed to "use cr template" and "oppose" should be "use currency word" Manoof (talk) 01:03, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• The Executor only uses the Cr template because you added it and I've been too lazy to change it back. I suspect most of the others are also because you personally added them. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:56, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh? I never even touched Executor page, as I can't find myself in its history. I do remember changing one GA page to the template, which you recently reverted, which revealed to me the inconsistencies, which prompted me to start this CT. The other weapon infoboxes I've been working on do use the template because there are no guidelines for or against it.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 15:55, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
    • My mistake. This was the edit. At any rate, someone's made a habit of going around and inserting the Cr template into status articles, and I've usually been reverting them whenever I see it. If you're not that person, I apologize. But that's typically the reason why so many status articles utilize this template, not necessarily because the nomination system has endorsed its use. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:15, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah. Sorry about that Tope :P Fe Nite (talk) 19:13, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
• I do agree there should be standardization, which (in its current state) this proposal will not enforce without another CT, if the final verdict is "Oppose". I propose that the "Support" option be changed to "Use {{Cr}} in the infobox" and "Oppose" to "Use credits in the infobox." ^Jorrel_Fraajic 06:36, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Brandon, casual readers from around the world are quite familiar with the placement of a currency symbol before a price, such as $1,000. I think they will be able to figure out 1,000 is a monetary denomination. Jang: I don't understand. Esjs: Simple. Take a look at the cost of the Blastsword. --Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 16:09, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd say the Blastsword infobox is an example of why "credits" should be used instead of the symbol. It would be more consistent than mixing currency symbols on one line with spelled-out currency names on another. - Esjs (Talk to me) 15:18, June 11, 2014 (UTC)