Difference between revisions of "Wurmpedia talk:Settlement"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We currently have some overloading of the settlement concept. The templates are currently used for three different cases: | We currently have some overloading of the settlement concept. The templates are currently used for three different cases: | ||
| − | * Populated, deeded area ( | + | * Populated, deeded area (Fort Mole) |
| − | * Unpopulated, deed area ( | + | * Unpopulated, deed area (Goblin Outpost) |
* Populated, undeeded area ([[Shantytown]]) | * Populated, undeeded area ([[Shantytown]]) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:15, 15 December 2020
We currently have some overloading of the settlement concept. The templates are currently used for three different cases:
- Populated, deeded area (Fort Mole)
- Unpopulated, deed area (Goblin Outpost)
- Populated, undeeded area (Shantytown)
Is this something to bother expanding on, or should we leave it to the advanced template to clarify deed status? - Dashiva 08:16, 4 November 2007 (CST)
How about making two templates for displaying undeeded and unpopulated status? I'm thinking of something like s-nopop and s-nodeed. - Ketza 12:11, 4 November 2007 (CST)
The boxes could look like this: User:Ketza/Settlement templates - Ketza 12:35, 4 November 2007 (CST)
- That's one option, but then we either need 4 copies of each (for kingdom/server combinations) or we lose the kingdom/server categorization for those settlements. That's why I think delegating to a second template set is probably better. - Dashiva 12:39, 4 November 2007 (CST)
