v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Plantlookup/aux"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
MisterB777 (talk | contribs) (Noted, but the request for an update remains, please) |
(rsp) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I assume that "Edible: No" refers to the ''plant'', rather than the fruit (i.e. what's present in the [[DF2014:Eggplant/raw|raws]]). —[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 23:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | :I assume that "Edible: No" refers to the ''plant'', rather than the fruit (i.e. what's present in the [[DF2014:Eggplant/raw|raws]]). —[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 23:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
::I would assume so as well. However, that's not terribly useful now that the majority of plants' raws aren't structured in a way where the edible bits are the whole plant. I guess what I'm saying is the template no longer represents useful information because it is ignoring the new plant structures. No one really cares if the entire plant is edible if there are multiple parts that are and, instead, it just seems to indicate that nothing about the plant is edible (which is untrue). Unfortunately, I'm no good at templates, or i might try to make it clearer. [[User:MisterB777|MisterB777]] ([[User talk:MisterB777|talk]]) 07:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ::I would assume so as well. However, that's not terribly useful now that the majority of plants' raws aren't structured in a way where the edible bits are the whole plant. I guess what I'm saying is the template no longer represents useful information because it is ignoring the new plant structures. No one really cares if the entire plant is edible if there are multiple parts that are and, instead, it just seems to indicate that nothing about the plant is edible (which is untrue). Unfortunately, I'm no good at templates, or i might try to make it clearer. [[User:MisterB777|MisterB777]] ([[User talk:MisterB777|talk]]) 07:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::I Agree that this template is in need of an update since the plant-expansion greatly increased complexity and utility. I'll try to find time to update it in the not-too-distant future.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:32, 27 January 2015
Does this template need to be updated? it doesn't seem to be handling the new aboveground crops with fruit properly. see Eggplant, which is being listed as "Edible: No". MisterB777 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I assume that "Edible: No" refers to the plant, rather than the fruit (i.e. what's present in the raws). —Lethosor (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would assume so as well. However, that's not terribly useful now that the majority of plants' raws aren't structured in a way where the edible bits are the whole plant. I guess what I'm saying is the template no longer represents useful information because it is ignoring the new plant structures. No one really cares if the entire plant is edible if there are multiple parts that are and, instead, it just seems to indicate that nothing about the plant is edible (which is untrue). Unfortunately, I'm no good at templates, or i might try to make it clearer. MisterB777 (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)