(less is not always more) Tag: sourceedit |
Darkwynters (talk | contribs) (Different idea...) Tag: sourceedit |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
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. |
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. |
||
|—[[User:Moviesign|Moviesign]] ([[User talk:Moviesign|talk]]) 14:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)}} |
|—[[User:Moviesign|Moviesign]] ([[User talk:Moviesign|talk]]) 14:01, August 11, 2015 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |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. |
||
+ | | - [[User:Darkwynters|Darkwynters]] ([[User talk:Darkwynters|talk]]) 18:06, August 11, 2015 (UTC) }} |
Revision as of 18:06, 11 August 2015
Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
{{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.
As for categories, are we agreed on:
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?
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.
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.
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.