Options for how plant categories and Infoboxes are redone

Currently, the various type of plant Infoboxes have the category hardcoded. Since we'll possibly have 6 new (Arctic|Desert)(Flower|Bush|Tree) types of plants, I don't see the point in making 6 more Infoboxes. If we can standardize it to 3 (Flower, Bush, Tree) Infoboxes for any terrain, that might be better, but that raises the question of how the category tag is handled. Do we hardcode it in the article? Transclude it, ala what's being done with Template:VP2? (I'm a fan of transcluding it, since it means only one edit to globally change it, should that need arise.)

Next, how do we organize this information within the categories? Do we need an Arctic bush, Desert bush, and regular Bush category, and so on? How are we handling future games? (e.g. Species had to become Classic species. Will Arctic bush need to be renamed to support something new down the road? Is there a better "hierarchy" to use now?

Finally, how do we navigate this? Currently, all the 19? flowers, bushes, and trees are in a single Navbox. Do we toss in the new ones in there too, and just go with a single Navbox below the tabs? (That's different from how we do species.) Is there a reason to split things out by game for flowers too (for future's sake or for consistency)?

On a completely unrelated note, we should try to use standard naming conventions. Referring to the same game by TiP and VP2 is probably confusing, and clutters up the namespace. We should be adopting consistent names, whether in CSS, category, template, or article namespaces. How about calling category templates Category-TroubleInParadise-xxx, where xxx refers to what we're categorizing, e.g.:

• Category-TroubleInParadise-Game for the Category:Trouble in Paradise transclude
• Category-TroubleInParadise-ArcticFlower for the ...

Other thoughts/ideas? --FeralKitty (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We can probably write wikicode to automagically categorize based on entries in the infobox. i.e.

Type=Flower Terrain=Arctic = category:Arctic Flower as for the structure... Vegetation -> Type -> Terrain ? (do some type work in all terrains?)

for future proofing we probably shouldn't call it TIP-Arctic Flower as the same arctic flowers might show up in VP3. most readers should know that VP doesn't have arctic or desert flowers.

I can stop using VP2 if we want to go with TIP since it's already in wide use. –xenocidic (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like us to come up with a name that fits the standard naming convention.

I'd prefer to not do something automagical, as there's no guarantee it will support things we don't know about yet. Let's stick to a robust solution that won't break or require a hotfix.

It's not a safe to assume anything about VP3, or how much, if at all, VP3 will overlap VP2. I completely forget where this conversation was, so I'll just reiterate with an example here. If VP3 is "Pinatas on Mars" and Mars has an Arctic icecap, and there's a Martian Lily that grows there, then we need to distinguish between TiP Arctic flower and PoM Arctic flower, since they share no common Arctic flowers.

The key is that the template name and the transcluded category name do not have to correspond 1:1. So, if VP3 did have VP2 Arctic flowers, then you merely have to move your Category-TiP-ArcticFlower to Category-PoM-ArcticFlower, and TiP and PoM both transclude the same cat without having to mass-edit anything.

I think I'll just follow your "VP2" example of using transclusion, so the cat can be edited in one place, and all we have to do is decide on the actual template names, for these different categories.

By the way, let's try to discuss things before moving templates. I really prefer not to have lots of redirected templates, with some articles using {{div}} and some using {{tab}}. I thought Div worked perfectly fine, reflected what the template managed, and was also more flexible -- headertabs may get replaced by something newer/better down the road but divs will probably be around for a lot longer. --FeralKitty (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, moved it back to div and deleted the leftover redirect. So you basically want it to be like {{TIP-Arctic flower}}, {{TIP-Arctic species}}, etc? with the categories in the templates? –xenocidic (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably change the names a little, to organize them by a different hierarchy, but yep, categories in the templates.

The species are "done" in the sense that the articles are up, the categories and cat articles are set, and everything is categorized right (even if the category names may not be robust. Maybe in a few weeks, we could go back and retrofit these newish templates to the articles, but I'd like to concentrate on what's left, since there's plenty more to do. I'm still not sure if there's a need to categorize anything much more than we're doing now.

I like how Category:Species, et al, turned out, and the focus is on Category:Garden Piece now, starting with its plants. Let's put Arctic and Arctic species on the shelf for a couple days until we see if Arctic is really needed or not. --FeralKitty (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I assume we'll be deleting the deprecated templates, should we move this particular talk page to Template talk:PlantInfobox ? (I checked and the rest of the templates don't have talk pages, so they can safely be deleted). No transclusions for any of the following:
  • Template:BushInfobox
  • Template:TreeInfobox
  • Template:FlowerInfobox
  • Template:VegetableInfobox
  • Template:WaterFlowerInfobox
  • Template:WeedInfobox
    • –xenocidic (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template changes for additional PV cards

Since PV cards for seeds are being uploaded, they should be shown on their plant articles, since that's one possible place a visitor may expect to find them. To be complete, we should also show the produce cards. This would necessitate a few new fields:

• seed_image
• seed_title - the title field can't be used for this caption also (e.g., a seed for a fir tree is typically a fir seed instead of a "fir tree" + " seed").
• produce_image

I don't believe a produce_title is needed, since we already have a produce_singular field that can also serve as a produce_image caption. I'll sandbox a few layouts, and we can decide if we want to proceed with this. I've also wanted to "modernize" the infoboxes, so this would be a good opportunity for any ideas or suggestions about look, feel, or behavior. --FeralKitty (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've sandbox'd some examples, but I have mixed feelings about these changes. First, it's a specific fix for a specific set of cards, for a handful of pages, and I think we should be adopting broader, more general solutions that work for more cards from more pages, including ones without Infoboxes. Second, I'm not sure how much "info" a picture of a seed or produce adds to the Infobox. Perhaps someone else can decide if there's any value in adding seed and produce cards to this Infobox. --FeralKitty (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)