Difference between revisions of "Wurmpedia talk:Settlement"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: 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. - [[User:Dashiva|Dashiva]] 12:39, 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. - [[User:Dashiva|Dashiva]] 12:39, 4 November 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I was thinking of a second template that you add under the old settlement template, Goblin Outpost would look like [[User:Ketza/Goblin_Outpost|this]]. Does that look too crowded? - [[User:Ketza|Ketza]] 12:47, 4 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 19:47, 4 November 2007
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)
