Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Should individual pages be made for each terrain types?

Knaughty (talkcontribs)

I saw that there were pages for Rough stone and Rough-hewn stone, while the page for shallow water was deleted by Harakoni for being to narrow to warrant a page. But it was deleted almost year ago so idk. Should the other pages be deleted or should new ones be made for the rest of the terrain types?

Albedo (talkcontribs)

As a general Wiki rule, if similar or related info can be consolidated onto one page, having it all in that one article is preferable to scattering it across multiple pages. This allows for easy comparison/analysis at a glance. So the answer is: how much different info is there to display, and would it all be better displayed on one page? (As a btw, altho' I've just arrived at this wiki, I plan to do some consolidating along those lines myself. So don't be shy about it.) Albedo (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Knaughty (talkcontribs)

Yeah you're right. On the Terrain table, all the terrain types are already there in one place. The only real information missing is images, and where you would find that terrain. Idk if that information is even necessary or that useful though. What I mean is that they are already pretty self explanatory just by name. I don't see the harm in just adding an extra column with the where that terrain would be found though. Maybe having the image for the terrain appear when hovering the mouse over the type? idk if you can do that on this wiki though.

(im also quite new and i dont really know what im doing, if you couldn't tell)

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

The benefit of individual pages is that you can use the infobox template to make referable variables. For example, you can use {{Q|Rough stone|Move Speed Factor}} to automatically output 0.87, and have that number be updated whenever the page is. Similarly those properties can be used in math, or called as part of #asks (e.g. to show all terrains and flooring types with Move Speeds under 100%). A combination of these are how many templates around the wiki work.

So far it hasn't been necessary to do that for terrain pages, though if any compelling use case exists they could be created.

As for the specific examples, rough and roughhewn stone had at least some content and I wasn't go to go out of my way to delete the page. Shallow water was basically a single line, half of which suggested going to watch a youtube guide iirc.

Reply to "Should individual pages be made for each terrain types?"
There are no older topics