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)