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)