Template talk:Building cost

Why would you delete it when I'm obviously working on it? Napoleon (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2014 (EST)

I'm not even sure I like how this came out. Other opinions are welcome. Napoleon (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (EST)

• Putting the building footprint in the resource table doesn't really make sense. Plus, the formatting doesn't work out; it makes it seem like the building footprint is related to or some quantity of whatever resource's row it's put on.

Well I have to agree, it's not really a building resource but the idea and execution are noted. I'm mainly focused on providing more information and images that are missing right now. I changed it before because things looked weird and I thought I messed something up.- illectrik

Ok, I apologize for lashing out. I think we should remove it from the chart. It just looked wierd sitting by itself. Maybe theres something else we can do with it to make it flow better with the page? Napoleon (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (EST)

Perhaps there is a way to double or bold the line between the resource requirements and the layout to differentiate the two? Since space usage could be considered a "cost", I think it needs to be included somehow in this template.