Template talk:Plane

Parts!
Why is 4 of those not in Bold? Terrorblades - This is recorded live at  21:25, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Language
Note to self: we should probably have a language field here for the dominant language of the plane. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:50, September 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Made it languages to match Location. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:55, September 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha&mdash;I thought you might replace the word "self" above with "Moviesign". :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:57, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

Handling different cosmologies
While editing Golden Hills, I noticed that the different cosmological interpretations of the planes are not handled in a very clean way. Especially now with 5 edition restoring the Great Wheel cosmology as the main one, the "historic" approach [previously a realm on this plane (1,2e), then its own separate plane (3e), then tossed around and merged with some random plane (4e), then back to where it all started (5e)] doesn't seem like an adequate description anymore. On the other hand, splitting articles for each one of the different cosmologies also doesn't seem like a good alternative, since most planes' internal characteristics are still basically the same across editions.

So I suggest we come up with a different way to present the information, such as separate infobox fields for each cosmology (typeGW, typeWT, typeWA, and so on, complete with refsGW, etc.), which would then render into separate sections, like with magical items or spells.

Thoughts? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 15:09, May 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * This is certainly possible. I would like to hear some thoughts about what fields would be kept "common" and which ones should be broken out into GW, WT, or WA cosmologies. Do we want a tabbed presentation, or just stack the sections on top of each other. (With tabs, we can't do the refsGW thing.) Do we have Planar Traits in 5 edition? That sort of thing. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:22, May 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * I considered suggesting a tabbed presentation, but I think it might become a little cumbersome (I may be wrong; you guys are capable of some serious wizardry with these templates). Plus, having the references grouped together seems nice, and it's also nice to have the different cosmologies appear at the same time to compare them.


 * As for the cosmology-specific fields, I'd say that at least type should be separate, the options being Realm, Layer, (Upper, Lower, Inner, Outer) Plane, Region, etc. It would also be nice to have a location (or similar) field in case a plane is contained in another in a given cosmology (such as a layer or a realm, which also facilitates auto-categories). I'm not sure about other fields, such as alignment trait or magical trait, because I'm not very well versed in WA and WT cosmology.


 * 5 edition does have some planar traits, but they're not presented in a concise, systematic way. Stuff like gravity trait, time trait and the like are scattered throughout the planes' descriptions across several sources (currently mostly Dungeon Master's Guide 5th edition and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes). There are two clearly stated traits, however: psychic dissonance (basically alignment: upper planes are good and lower planes are evil; see DMG5e, p.59) plus an individual trait for each plane ("blessed beneficence" in Celestia, "pervasive goodwill" in Bytopia, etc).


 * ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 16:24, May 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here is a potential list of entries that could be separated by cosmology and others that could stay common to all:


 * Separated:
 * type
 * shape & size (irrelevant in WT)
 * gravity trait
 * time trait (only relevant in GW)
 * morphic (replace for mutability in WA)
 * elemental & energy traits
 * alignment trait
 * magical trait
 * faith trait (irrelevant in GW)
 * layers
 * parent plane (or location, or something to that effect)


 * Common:
 * natives
 * languages


 * So far 5e doesn't seem to introduce any new trait that can't just go in the main text.


 * Any suggestions? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 02:27, July 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * That's probably enough for me to try and cobble something together. Oh, and I misspoke when I said we couldn't put refs in tabs, we are already doing it in the Creature template, so I don't know what possessed me. The problem with tabs is that they do not render correctly on mobile devices. According to FANDOM, it won't be long before more than 50% of traffic is from mobile units. It may have already happened. I put a lot of effort into getting tabs to work, but they aren't the answer to every layout. We'll have to see what people think. Have you ever tried to view the wiki on a phone? What did you think? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:02, July 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this could be the topic of an entirely new discussion that I've been meaning to bring up for a while. For this discussion, well, at least the tabs from creature infoboxes work somewhat. They don't render as tabs, but rather stack on top of one another. At least the content is displayed. On the other hand, image tabs don't work at all. No image appears at the top of a page that has a environment in the image field.


 * As for other features, navboxes render pretty horribly too, but at least they display the content. In general, the site is displayed in a generic blue over white theme, so I'd guess that there hasn't been much customization for mobile devices. I can browse more and try to compile a list of stuff that appears wonky, but these are the most salient aspects I noticed. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 04:28, July 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, the tabbed version of Plane is viewable at User:Moviesign/Template:Plane, but the demo page where you see it in action is User:Moviesign/PlaneOfFire. If all three tabs do not appear on the same line, you may have to clear your cache a few times until the CSS fix loads. If it isn't fixed by tomorrow, I may have to tweak it some more. Comments? Suggestions?


 * Believe it or not, the tabber for images is supported by FANDOM (at least, they acknowledge it can be done), but not the one down in the body of the infobox (but I know at least one FANDOM staff that likes it). The "stack on top of one another" is working as intended since that is pretty much what it looks like without CSS (which gets mostly stripped on mobile, I think). &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:04, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * I cleared my cache, but the tabs are on two lines, not one. The other issue is that clicking one reloads the page each time, such that if I want to go back to a previous page in the browser, it takes multiple clicks. Otherwise, it is looking good. ~ Lhynard (talk) 12:48, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * What browser/OS are you using? I had the same problem when I got to work (FireFox 52 on Linux) so I made a tweak and it looks good for me now, so try again. As for the multiple pages, I believe that has always been the case for tabbers in the main infobox (not images), and tabbers outside of infoboxes. See the example I just added to User:Moviesign/PlaneOfFire. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:22, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * The tabs are also showing on two lines here for me, even after cleaning up the cache several times (Firefox 61 on Linux). Otherwise it looks great. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 14:27, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * This fixed it for me; all the tabs are on one line. FWIW, I use Firefox 45.8 one Windows 7.


 * Wow, you are right about the page loads; somehow, I never noticed that before! I guess that I am always moving forward when I use the wiki. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:54, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as suggestions, I think we could add a Deities field to the "Basic Information" section. For the "Planar Traits" section, could we add a Connections or Borders field? For example, Fire connects to Magma and Ash, etc.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:54, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * Resetting indents before they get ridiculous. Please try again Sirwhiteout, and if it's still not fixed for you, I'll make another tweak.


 * Deities move from plane to plane across editions, so I don't think we can put them in the Basic Info section. That list might get pretty long since some planes have entire pantheons (with exceptions). I would not choose "connections" because that implies every portal. Even "borders" might be problematic with the World Tree, since the tree connects many planes together. And look at all those crazy lines on the World Axis map! The only one that is neat is the Great Wheel. Bleah. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:11, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it is still displaying in two lines. I tried it on Chrome (67, Linux) after cleaning the cache, but it also displays the tabs in two lines. I thought it might be related to display resolution, but no change when I tried on a different screen with a higher resolution.


 * I wouldn't mind a connections field in the Great Wheel tab. It makes a lot of sense in many planes to have that in the infobox for quick access, I think.


 * Another idea: what about a layer number field, right after the location field? Might make sense to have it in all three cosmologies. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 21:08, July 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * We already have layers; are you planning on using this template for individual layers as well as entire planes? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:26, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * That is the idea, since some layers, such as Gaping Maw, have their own pages and sometimes display distinct properties from the rest of the plane. This is certainly true in the Layers of the Abyss, but may also happen elsewhere. I'm not married to this idea, though. Would the location template fit the bill better? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:37, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think that layers should get the Plane template, as many layers become planes in their own right in some cosmologies. ~ Lhynard (talk) 04:01, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * After discussing with Moviesign a bit, a few ideas came up:


 * We could use the layer number, type, and location fields to interact, generating subtitles under each tab similar to the ones that Celestial body does. For example, Arvandor would have the following parameters:


 * layer numberGW = 1
 * locationGW = Arborea
 * typeGW = Layer
 * typeWT = Celestial plane
 * typeWA = Domain
 * locationWA = Astral Sea


 * so it would generate the subheading 1st layer of Arborea in the Great Wheel tab, Celestial Plane in the World Tree tab, and Domain in the Astral Sea (or Astral domain) in the World Axis tab.


 * Realms that span multiple layers like Azzagrat would keep the layer number parameter empty, and type would be set to "Realm". So it renders as Realm in the Abyss. The field layers can then include Rauwend, Shadowsky and Voorz'zt as layers within the realm.


 * Thoughts? Does anyone foresee a potential problem with this model in some weird planar location? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 18:24, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * I like it. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:26, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * Would we have to split Olympus into two articles, one for Olympus and one for Arvandor? You can't really use the Former template in fields that are inputs to the calculation for the subheading. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 21:23, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Arborea situation is particularly hairy, but not unsolvable. Would a othernames field suffice? Especially because even calling the Outer Plane itself Olympus contradicts the latest-edition naming policy. So I'd say that the article on the main plane can be renamed to Arborea (with the infobox containing othernames = Olympus), whereas the first layer is described in the Arvandor article (othernames = Olympus as well). No Former would be necessary. Am I oversimplifying? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 22:09, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * (reset indent) Yes, I think othernames might work. What do we call Cynosure and the Fugue Plane? Unique Planes? In a nutshell, I need to know all the possible values for type, since everything else depends on it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:24, July 13, 2018 (UTC)