Talk:Vegetation

Does anyone else agree that this article should be split up into seperate individual ones? If no one disagrees, I'd like to start that up in a bit or so. Johnnyriot999 03:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would ask why you want to split it up. On the one hand, I can see it getting bulky with many entries. However, the alternative would be to create multiple pages, depending on how the vegetation is categorized. Since the FRCS groups the majority of its information on vegetation in one section (pg 79) and because the total amount of information is limited (at least compared to other subjects such as monsters, Waterdeep, the Harpers, etc.) I don't see a need to split this into multiple pages. --Fizzygoo 10:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is solid, Fizzy, but I have to go with Johnny on the split idea. We're at liberty to add further information on each of the individual species, such as the locations where it might be found. Although there is one bulk of information on vegetation in the source material, if some information is scattered elsewhere (for example, a novel might state, "Evereska's blueleafs were flourishing") then it would be safe to expand the text for that piece of vegetation. I don't think splitting it up is a priority though, because these are the kind of articles that will build slowly once the initial summary is written. So, my preference is to split eventually, but at the current time I would not say that either option is better than the other! Fw190a8 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)