Forum:Plant template

Forums: Helping Hand > Plant template

---

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

---

So, could we make a plant template? I've been using Template:Item but it's really not doing it for me. I'd love to have one that is a mix of Template:Item and Template:Creature, such as

{{Plant
| image         = 
| caption       = 
| name          = 
| othernames    = 
| nicknames     = 
| type          = 
| location      =
| origin        =
| value         =
| usage         = 
| lifespan      =
| height        =
| trunkdiameter =
| stemcolor     =
| leaftype      =
| leafcolor     =
| flowercolor   =
| distinctions  = 
| first         =
}}

(And maybe something about whether its edible or not, but I don't know how to phrase that, or specify to whom.) See a few articles that could benefit: Blueleaf, Bluecap, Duskwood (tree). Thoughts?
P.S. Note that some "plants" are considered creatures (Hangman tree), but I don't feel like that fits for most of them.

Coswig (talk) 20:46, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

I am not completely against this idea... hmmm, have we had this discussion before?

- Darkwynters (talk) 21:05, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

It's very possible it's been discussed before; I'll admit I don't really follow the forums. What I could find was the discussion Forum:Are plants considered items?, which is related in terms of categorization but didn't broach the idea of a plant template (according to my skimming). I would like a standardized template because I have big plans for a bunch of plants I would like to put in/clean up, you see :)

Coswig (talk) 21:43, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

You have my vote in support.

~ Lhynard (talk) 22:50, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. Are those all the parameters that you want? Will the same template be used for fungi? I think "edible" will have to be from the point of view of the consumer, so how about a consumedby parameter? If there is a list of types, that would be handy for the documentation (which I hope you will help write, since you know the flavor of info that is going into the infobox).

As for categories, are we agreed on:

• Category:Vegetation
  • Category:Plants
  • Category:Fungi

or does this need more discussion? I'm thinking of making a main {{Vegetation}} template and having {{Plant}} and {{Fungus}} templates as pass-throughs to the main one. Depending on which sub-template you use, the page will be put in Category:Vegetation and either Category:Plants or Category:Fungi. Thoughts?

—Moviesign (talk) 01:21, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

The template could be used for fungi as well as plants (add color and capcolor parameter), or if you want to split the two up into subtemplates, I think that's fine. Either way. I like the idea of a consumed by parameter. Along with that, any good way to throw whether an edible plant is or produces a fruit, vegetable, nut/seed, or herb/spice?

Some types:

• Category:Plants
  • Cactus, Flower, Grass, Herb, Moss, Shrub, Tree, Vine (a few others possible)
• Category:Fungi
  • Mold, Mushroom, Fungus (a few others also possible)

We have a Category:Weeds, but I'm not sure how I feel about "weed" as a type, since being a weed is subjective; anything can be a weed.

--Coswig (talk) 04:39, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I don't quite see the need. For one, plant monsters will become ambiguous: will they use the Plant template or the Creature template? Some ordinary, semi-magical plants are mobile or have strange powers (e.g., undead bloodrose) and seem to warrant more than a mere Plant template, and are more Creature or Item.

Parameters like trunkdiameter, stemcolor, leaftype, leafcolor, flowercolor, etc., are all basic bits of description that I think would be better suited to the main body of the article, in a Description section. What's left is basically the Creature template.

Can we not just use Creature for non-monstrous plants? I'm generally in favour of having less but more flexible and adaptable infobox templates.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything ambiguous about plant monsters. If they have a challenge rating or give experience, then they are Creatures in Category:Plant creatures, otherwise they are Vegetation of some sort, mobile or not.

The basic bits of description are analogous to eyecolor, haircolor, etc. Do you want to remove those from the Creature template and move that info to the Description? It seems to me we've already committed to having "basic bits" in the infobox.

In answer to your question, yes I suppose we could use the Creature template for non-monstrous plants (thought I would still make a pass-through just to make it easier for editors and for category generation), but the type parameter has specific meaning in game terms for creatures and not so for plants. The proposed consumedby parameter would take on a new meaning for a Creature.

There is a trade-off between making a template more flexible and being more complex, but whatever the group decides, I can make it happen.

—Moviesign (talk) 14:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, man I can see both Movie and BadCat's sides... we have item, creature templates... maybe make a more catch all one like Food and Drink... so more pages could use it, than just plants... so assassin vine would use Creature template... blackroot could be item and bluecap is in food and drink template, which could also have wine in it.

- Darkwynters (talk) 18:06, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

The world won't end without a Plant (or Vegetation, if you prefer) template, but in my opinion it would actually simplify things, since plants aren't either items or creatures — half of each template doesn't apply and will never apply, making each unwieldy to use. There wouldn't be any more ambiguity in whether a plant should count as an item or creature (plant monsters excluded from the ambiguity, as Moviesign pointed out). And using two or three templates to cover a single category of things in the Realms seems overly complicated to me (not to mention full of even more ambiguity), whereas having a single template would in fact simplify things.

--Coswig (talk) 21:35, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I plan on making a Plant template, but the question is whether it should be an overlay of the Creature template, or its own template. The Vegetation/Plant/Fungus thing is just for automatic generation of categories and two of those templates would be very simple while the third would do the real work. Compare {{Creature}} to {{Creature/aberration}} for an example. The other question is whether to have the "basic bits of description" that you suggested up at the top of this thread. I'm in favor of them because the precedent has already been set in the Creature template, but we'll see what BadCat volleys back :)

—Moviesign (talk) 22:27, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I vote Plant as its own template, not as an overlay of the Creature template — plants are not creatures, and I could see the overlay leading to confusion when it comes to monstrous plants/plant monsters. I have no strong opinions on the description info; I just threw that in to parallel the Creature template.

--Coswig (talk) 01:17, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, don't mind me if everyone else in in favour. Go right ahead. I had some other thoughts, but I think they're already covered by the proposed template.

— BadCatMan (talk) 12:58, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

BadCat, feel free to mention your thoughts... they might be very helpful :)

- Darkwynters (talk) 20:10, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I like the Plant Template idea but would add a parameter for whether or not they are poisonious/toxic.

- Artemas (talk) 20:27, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Poisonous/toxic is just the flip side of edible, so it will probably have to be from the view point of those that find the plant toxic, i.e., poisonousto.

—Moviesign (talk) 22:45, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that, as plants can be used as foods, drugs, poisons, building materials, etc., the template would need some way of expressing that. I was thinking elements of Item could be ported over, then looked at Item and couldn't think which. Then I noticed "usage" in Coswig's example, and it was no longer a concern. I'm liking the template much more now, and can see the need for an infobox on plant articles I've made, like bija tree and rosecork, for consistency if nothing else. Maybe I just argue contrary positions to test out proposals (not on purpose).

— BadCatMan (talk) 00:40, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Please look at User:Moviesign/Duskwood and User:Moviesign/Bluecap for examples of the first drafts of a Plant and a Fungus template and give feedback. The two new templates are both pass-throughs to a Vegetation template found here. Using the Plant template will (when enabled) place the page in Category:Vegetation and Category:Plants. Using the Fungus template will place the page in the Category:Vegetation and Category:Fungi.

Do you like the names of the parameters? Do you like how they are presented? For example, "location" is presented as "Grows" so you can add your own "on" or "in", but it could just as well be presented as "Grows on/in" or we could just stick with "Location", but I like "Grows" so I wrote it that way :) The colors can also be tweaked if you find them aesthetically displeasing. Are there any parameters that are missing? I disallowed the parameters in Plant that I thought only applied to Fungi, and vice versa, so speak up if you disagree. Hopefully we do not need edition-specific parameters (please).

What should the standardized sections be for an article about a plant or fungus?

—Moviesign (talk) 02:37, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Movie, as always... excellent work... both templates look great... I do not have time to try them out, but they appear exceptionally crafted :)

- Darkwynters (talk) 16:15, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Plant template: Looks grand, except "Lifespan" and "First Appearance" should be in lowercase to parallel the other parameter names (applies to Fungus as well). Also, some plants have neither leaves nor stems (moss, for example), so we probably need an overall color parameter, like in Fungus.

Fungus template: Fungus don't technically have trunks since they aren't wood... that would be covered by stem color, so "trunk color" isn't needed. I would put "stem color" and "cap color" together, however, so they aren't separated by overall color (needed for non-mushrooms, etc).

I'm not sure I like needing to add the in/on to the "Grows" parameter (especially when it doesn't get added, as in the bluecap example). Maybe just "Location" instead?

Some ideas for standardized sections (order is fluid):

==Description==
==Ecology==
==Usage==
==Location==
==History==
==Appendix==

(Appendix as per normal, of course.)

--Coswig (talk) 03:19, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

What about lichens? :p

— BadCatMan (talk) 03:25, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I made a few changes suggested by Coswig. It now says "Grows in/on" so you don't have to add your own preposition. However, it's not much trouble to add a useon parameter so it says "Grows in" by default and "Grows on" when set. The order of presentation was altered a bit to put capcolor and stemcolor next to each other and below the general color. I removed trunkdiameter from the Fungus template (I must have been thinking of GIANT mushrooms).

Lichens are part fungus, so use the Fungus template :p

—Moviesign (talk) 03:53, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

The new {{Plant}} and {{Fungus}} templates are now available for general use. Please look over the documentation and the examples (User:Moviesign/Duskwood and User:Moviesign/Bluecap) for any typos or weirdness. Feel free to improve on the documentation. If after using them on your pages, you feel something is missing or wrong, please post here.

—Moviesign (talk) 02:42, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Looks good!

— BadCatMan (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

I haven't used them yet because I've been busy with novels, but they look great. Thanks!

—Coswig (talk) 03:44, August 23, 2015 (UTC)