Category talk:Woods

Color me dumb, but how are woods distinguished from forests? Is this difference plain to the average user? I'm willing to admit that I might be dumber than the average user, but I don't see why Ankhwood (or any of the other "woods") isn't classified as a forest. :) Wanderscribe (talk) 04:00, May 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * A woodland is a low-density forest. The distinction is interesting and relevant to how the 3.5 DMG handles forest terrain (number of trees, distance of Spot checks).
 * But that's just in American speech. British speech has it that a woodland is simply smaller than a forest, regardless of density. And of course, the Wikipedia article for "forest" also says a forest can also be called a "wood" or "woods", making it kind of uncertain whether, say, the Ankhwood is a woodland or a denser kind of forest. The Adhe Wood, for example, is small but actually quite dense. The Wood of Sharp Teeth is both large and dense.
 * Given how haphazard the naming convention is, there seems little benefit to distinguishing between woods and forests. I'm in favour of merging the categories. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:56, May 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay I get that. And thank you for making it make sense! :D  Perhaps we could have all the forests/woodlands in the same Category but have a space in the infobox for sparse/dense for DMs who want to figure movement rates?  That way we can find all bodies of trees in one place, but the relevant distinctions are still available for those who want them, without confusing the rest of us.  I dunno... Wanderscribe (talk) 19:39, May 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. If we can't rely on the names, then we'd have to rely on given descriptions. So ideally, each forest page would have its density/size described in its Description or Geography section. Meanwhile, Template:Location also applies to countries, cities, lakes, mountains, etc., so an entry that gives density would have to be very general in scope. I'm not against it, I just can't think of what it should be. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:48, May 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh yea, I guess I was unwittingly suggesting a separate infobox just for forests. We could just use key words "light" and "dense" or whatever in the Geography section, and link them to "light forests" and "dense forests" pages and list the forests that qualify.  Soooo like a category without actually using categories, I guess.  My concern was just that splitting some of the forests into separate categories would get confusing for some of us.  Sorry to make a big deal out of it! :) Wanderscribe (talk) 05:44, May 26, 2013 (UTC)