Category talk:Plant - Revision history

Gonzoron at 12:50, 2 September 2010

2010-09-02T12:50:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 2 September 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Sounds reasonable to me. I can think of a hypothetical counter example, but not an actual one. Imagine if there were a number of historic trees across Ravenloft, say planted to commemorate the crowning the kings, the end of wars, etc. The Oak of Victory in the central square of Rivalis would be a page that could appear within the category of oak. [[User:Cure\|Cure]]		Sounds reasonable to me. I can think of a hypothetical counter example, but not an actual one. Imagine if there were a number of historic trees across Ravenloft, say planted to commemorate the crowning the kings, the end of wars, etc. The Oak of Victory in the central square of Rivalis would be a page that could appear within the category of oak. [[User:Cure\|Cure]]

			Agreed, but let's throw that in the "cross that bridge when we come to it" bin. :) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 06:15, 2 September 2010

2010-09-02T06:15:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 2 September 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I'm inclined to say yes for both. The question I have is whether the mundane plant species need to be categories or not. I'm leaning toward not. If anyone finds a reason to name an individual pine tree, we could revisit it. but for now I say: creatures remain categories, even mundane creatures (remember, we have some named pets and the like you might not expect, like [[Lupzig]]). But only "monstrous" plants get a category. other plants get a page. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)		I'm inclined to say yes for both. The question I have is whether the mundane plant species need to be categories or not. I'm leaning toward not. If anyone finds a reason to name an individual pine tree, we could revisit it. but for now I say: creatures remain categories, even mundane creatures (remember, we have some named pets and the like you might not expect, like [[Lupzig]]). But only "monstrous" plants get a category. other plants get a page. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

			Sounds reasonable to me. I can think of a hypothetical counter example, but not an actual one. Imagine if there were a number of historic trees across Ravenloft, say planted to commemorate the crowning the kings, the end of wars, etc. The Oak of Victory in the central square of Rivalis would be a page that could appear within the category of oak. [[User:Cure\|Cure]]

Gonzoron at 04:52, 24 August 2010

2010-08-24T04:52:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 23 August 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Ultimately, yes. Ranges would be extremely useful. I would love a complete treatment of trading relations. And with them of river traffic. Is it the first thing that should get done? Many would probabaly say no. BUt it is up to you really and what interests you. I still need to go back and finish up such things for Nova Vaasa, but I have grown board of it for the moment.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 00:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)		Ultimately, yes. Ranges would be extremely useful. I would love a complete treatment of trading relations. And with them of river traffic. Is it the first thing that should get done? Many would probabaly say no. BUt it is up to you really and what interests you. I still need to go back and finish up such things for Nova Vaasa, but I have grown board of it for the moment.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 00:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

			I'm inclined to say yes for both. The question I have is whether the mundane plant species need to be categories or not. I'm leaning toward not. If anyone finds a reason to name an individual pine tree, we could revisit it. but for now I say: creatures remain categories, even mundane creatures (remember, we have some named pets and the like you might not expect, like [[Lupzig]]). But only "monstrous" plants get a category. other plants get a page. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 00:18, 23 April 2010

2010-04-23T00:18:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 22 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	This might also apply to trade goods (domains' primary imports/exports). And some of this overlaps with work Cure has been doing. Just stuff to consider. --[[User:ChrisNichols\|ChrisNichols]] 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)		This might also apply to trade goods (domains' primary imports/exports). And some of this overlaps with work Cure has been doing. Just stuff to consider. --[[User:ChrisNichols\|ChrisNichols]] 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

	Ultimately, yes. Ranges would be extremely useful. I would love a complete treatment of trading relations. And with them of river traffic. Is it the first thing that should get done? Many would probabaly say no. BUt it is up to you really and what ~~excites~~. I still need to go back and finish up such things for Nova Vaasa, but I have grown board of it for the moment.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)		Ultimately, yes. Ranges would be extremely useful. I would love a complete treatment of trading relations. And with them of river traffic. Is it the first thing that should get done? Many would probabaly say no. BUt it is up to you really and what interests you. I still need to go back and finish up such things for Nova Vaasa, but I have grown board of it for the moment.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 00:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 00:15, 23 April 2010

2010-04-23T00:15:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 22 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This might also apply to trade goods (domains' primary imports/exports). And some of this overlaps with work Cure has been doing. Just stuff to consider. --[[User:ChrisNichols\|ChrisNichols]] 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)		This might also apply to trade goods (domains' primary imports/exports). And some of this overlaps with work Cure has been doing. Just stuff to consider. --[[User:ChrisNichols\|ChrisNichols]] 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

			Ultimately, yes. Ranges would be extremely useful. I would love a complete treatment of trading relations. And with them of river traffic. Is it the first thing that should get done? Many would probabaly say no. BUt it is up to you really and what excites. I still need to go back and finish up such things for Nova Vaasa, but I have grown board of it for the moment.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisNichols: Created page with 'Should we make pages for species of mundane plants, like trees? In Gaz. 1, the section on Barovian flora lists beech, oak, cherry, hazelnut, spruce, fir, pine, wild lilac, and da…'

2010-04-22T20:45:29Z

Created page with 'Should we make pages for species of mundane plants, like trees? In Gaz. 1, the section on Barovian flora lists beech, oak, cherry, hazelnut, spruce, fir, pine, wild lilac, and da…'

New page

Should we make pages for species of mundane plants, like trees? In Gaz. 1, the section on Barovian flora lists beech, oak, cherry, hazelnut, spruce, fir, pine, wild lilac, and daffodil as normal plants native to Barovia. Should any of these have a page (presumably noting their native range in the Demiplane)? Personally, I'd say not until we've added a lot more of the more unique people/places/things to the wiki; instead, this would be something to consider in the future (several months or more down the road).

The same question goes for fauna, such as those mentioned in Barovia's fauna section - deer, elk, boar, chamois, lynx, otter, badger, weasel, fox, wolf, rat, raven, owl, hawk, snake, eagle, and bear.

This might also apply to trade goods (domains' primary imports/exports). And some of this overlaps with work Cure has been doing. Just stuff to consider. --[[User:ChrisNichols|ChrisNichols]] 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)