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
| 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:

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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.