UESPWiki:Archive/CP Lore - Ingredients on the Flora Page

A recent discussion about removing oranges from the lore article revealed that there are many such ingredients all over the flora section of the wiki. As these don't involve actual plants, I don't feel they deserve a section. For comparison, look at the Daggerfall ingredients. Many of these are plant materials, yet we don't list those. What is the general opinion on this? Do we remove all ingredients without a plant to back them up? Or do we go all-out and start listing things like "Green berries"? Legoless 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:I see no need to list non-floral (There is no in-game plant, meaning things like bloat will be removed) ingredients there. Instead I think we should create a lore ingredients page (or at least I don't think we have one, I didn't see it when I did my searches for it) that lists all ingredients that can be used for alchemical purposes. This would allow us to keep a flora page intended for plant life, while also making sure ingredients like oranges get mentioned. --AKB   02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::I tend to agree that the entries with no flowers should go. That would mean losing entries for Apple, Garlic, Onion and Pear, and arguably Ironwood although I can see that one staying. I'm not sure about a Lore:Ingredients page though. rpeh  08:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I already started working on it, but if anyone thinks it is a bad idea say so here. --AKB   13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's difficult to see what would go on it that's not already covered in great detail on the game pages. The Flora pages at least cover information not readily available elsewhere. I'm quite sure you can prove me wrong though :) rpeh  13:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::On topic though can we get a bit more feedback since this would mean deleting at least one page, and removing content from several others though? --AKB   13:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::The main problem I have if that there is no general Flora page.  simply redirects to . There isn't a clear description of the section, otehr than the short description on : Information about the plants that can be found growing in Tamriel, especially those that can be used for alchemy. This is a bit counter intuitive with this discussion, as it implicitly states alchemy. -- DKong27    15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I thought this discussion was about removing the Ingredients which have no plants which spawn them from the Flora page. Where did someone say we should remove the entire Flora page? --Brf 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 I'm not sure what you are referring to, if you mean my comment I said that as the O flora page will be deleted as onions have no floral counter part. To reply to DKong, it also explicitly states that it is for plants, not alchemical ingredients. --AKB   15:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:{EditConflict}The point I was making there was that nowhere does it specifically say that Flora is only items that have in-game plants. I think that there should be a general Flora page in Lore space, as well an Ingredients page with its subsections. -- DKong27    15:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::I'd support that, it would give us the ability to better define flora. --AKB   15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::: I see. Yes, there should be a general Flora page. As for its definition, Flora generally refers to plants, not to their products. Therefore, an Orange Tree, if it existed in the game, would belong on the page, while the orange itself would not. --Brf 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::My problem with this is that biota (mushrooms) would have to be removed if we went with a strict definition of flora. We will have to define it as all plants and plant like creatures or something like that. But then you could argue that plant products like oranges could be included under our looser definition. --AKB   15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::: Mushrooms grow and regenerate though, like other plants, while an orange does not. --Brf 16:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::: On the subject of ingredients like ginkgo leaves, ironwood nuts and bloat: I think they should remain on the flora page. While the plants may not be identified as the source of said ingredients in-game (or, in bloat's case, just doesn't appear), sufficient information is provided in the CS to warrant their inclusion. If the aforementioned ingredients page is created, I think it should be similar to the bestiary - a table with a short description and the games it features in (e.g. Vicar Herbs are in both OBMobile and Shadowkey). Legoless 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::: Expanding Lore:Flora into a proper page is a good idea. Something similar needs to happen with the rest of the pages that currently have a _A structure. rpeh  17:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Since we haven't really reached a real consensus here I'll nominate pages I, O, and Y for a deletion review. The decisions there can be used to apply to the rest of the pages. I only has Ironwood nuts, the decision there will allow us to decide whether ingredients without an in-game, but CS confirmed floral equivalent should remain.   is for ones with no Flora backing it.   only has Daggerfall ingredients which if I understand correctly none have a floral equivalent. I'll start them in a second. --AKB   19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Actually I'll hold back on that until we have a main Lore:Flora page. Unless someone else thinks this is a good idea? --AKB   19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

: I agree that we should hold off removing things until most of the other work is done. Legoless 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Is somebody prepared to take this on? A big task like this is a feather in the cap for any editor. rpeh  21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::: All it takes is for somebody to start a sandbox. This is a perfect opportunity to start a reputation for quality editing. Yes, your work will be criticised, but then that's true of any work you do on the wiki. Start the sandbox, spend a little time on it, then ask for comments. Involve other editors at an earlier stage if you think they'll be interested and that their involvement will help..

::: Seriously, gang. This is about as non-controversial as it's ever going to get. I'd do it myself but this is a great chance for somebody to show they can manage a change. This is the kind of change that's looked for when people are being considered for admin status, not just patroller status. rpeh  22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay since this is a large, but simple task that we should get off our plate here are some of the suggested guidelines gathered from this conversation. I might be able to turn this into something given a little time. --AKB   22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It must either be plant-life or fungi. The inclusion of both is for simplicity so we don't have nearly two identical groups of pages. Fauna do not qualify.

It produces an ingredient (exception Nirnroot, Nirnroot is the ingredient and plant)

It regenerates (Exception Nirnroot)

It is backed by a plant, as in something like an apple does not qualify. We are listing plants, not there products. (still disputed)

:I've managed to create a somewhat decent rough draft (see here). I think the guidelines I create reflect what was discussed here, please voice any concerns about them on the talk page. --AKB   23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

:: I don't fully agree with the part about needing an ingredient. Pitcher plants, for example, clearly belong in flora. Yet they produce nothing. I also think the 'respawn' rule is a bit unnecessary, and I still personally want bloat to be included, but it's not a big deal. Legoless 16:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 

::: Speaking of things like that, where do we put the Mushroom Towers? They're obviously a plant, but produce nothing, and act like a structure.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Also, Re: Bloat, I'd agree that it should be in there, as there are models for the plants and such - it was obviously a time issue or something, and they exist, though they can't be found.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

::::To answer to TAO we don't include those, not currently (I think) or under the proposed guidelines. This is precisely why I added the guideline "It must be named". If we included non-named flora we would have to add a bunch of flora that is hardly explained or even mentioned, like the mushroom towers. To reply to Legoless I can see the it must regenerate guideline going, but I honestly don't think we should include things like bloat. If we do this will only cause more arguments over what is included. --AKB   17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  After reading this discussion, I've decided to chime in on the issue of bloat. Looking at the guidelines for what qualifies as flora, it seems bloat meets most of these, and although not found in game it is therefore hitched at the "plants mentioned in other sources" guideline. Later in the same guideline it says, that things mentioned in books, must meet other guidelines, which bloat does. It looks like a fungi to me, and it certainly does produce an ingredient. It is from another source - the games files, so by the guidelines currently written, technically counts as flora worth noting. For those reason, i think that bloat should be included, because i see no reason why it should not. On a further note, I'll be willing to help on this revamp. - Emoboy64 00:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:Since the consensus is against the removal of bloat, I'll drop the issue. Feel free to help out however you see fit to, I've been somewhat busy with other things so I've not been dedicating as much time as I should to it. --AKB   00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

::I've made a start, and will continue until I cannot describe any more plants! Hopefully we dont edit conflict at some point! - Emoboy64 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:::It seems that all non-flora has been removed, and I have added many descriptions to the flora already there. What is left I will check over after school, and re-word if necessary as I suspect it will be done by that point. Glad to have been able to help out - Emoboy64 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Back onto the subject of the overview page... It is mostly done as far as I am concerned, it could still use a few more tweaks to make the text a little less awkard, but besides that does anyone else have anything to say about the guidelines I have proposed? I think they are decent now. --AKB   02:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 

:::::Hmm. What will happen to pitcher plants? I think that the "Must produce ingredient" rule should go, as the intent is covered by the others, and this way we don't have odd cases like that here something is obviously a plant, and named, and in game, etc., but it isn't there because it doesn't produce something.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        08:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 

::::::Oops. Addendum: Since bloat is being kept (which is good), Ironwood should probably stay.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        08:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Ironwood is staying, due to both the CS and Special Flora of Tamriel. I removed that guideline though. Anymore problems with the sandbox? --AKB   11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

: Done! All the pages are harmonised the best I could make them. They may require some more tweaking, but I have made my best effort at getting them up to a generally similar description. All we need is this Flora homepage from AKB and we should be good with it! - Emoboy64 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

::My Sandbox is pretty much done. In the sense that as of now I believe the original concerns have been met. It lays down specific enough guidelines to make it clear what belongs in Lore:Flora, but vague enough to allow for future additions to either already meet these guidelines, or it could be easily altered to make them meet them. I'm still tweaking it but I am now somewhat comfortable with the notion of moving it out of my sandbox. So if anyone has any reservations about the overview page please voice them now, or correct it yourself (All users can edit it, as it clearly says at the top). I also wish to say that I believe all current content on the Lore:Flora pages meet the standards proposed in the sandbox after the earlier edits to the articles. So, it may be a bit early, but good job everyone.--AKB   19:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

::Edit:I'm taking the silence that there are no objections? I am launching the page at  which is as I write this only a redirect to . If nothing else it is a somewhat decent overview, and now that it is out of userspace feel free to edit it as you see fit. We should also alter the Flora template to now include the overview page. Sorry I couldn't work on this more as I've been quite busy. I also wish to say that though I am unsatisfied with the end result, it is better than having the overview page just be a redirect. So if nothing else it is a decent replacement for what used to be there. --AKB   00:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

::: It looks good to me! Certainly much better than a redirect. rpeh  07:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please post further comments on