Or there could be something on each subpage that refers the script to the higher level.
Ah, yeah, that'd probably be easier.
Let me see if I understand. An editor would go on the wiki and, for each creature, input the "start", "body", and "end" sections. A script would then come along and add the "pre" and "post" sections... but where? Would the script edit the wiki itself, or put the final raws somewhere else?
It would put them somewhere else -- the script is what turns the wiki pages into .txt raw files, so that we don't have to copy/paste each individual creature. A creature's "pre" and "post" sections wouldn't actually exist on the wiki.
EDIT: Also, how do you want the "start", "end", and maybe "body" sections displayed in the table on the wiki? Each in its own column?
EDIT 2: In fact, why have a table at all? We could keep the look and feel of the page the same as it is now and just have the raws in the source code.
That's an extremely valid point. As long as we can put the completion status in our current format (like putting a plus sign in front of the name for completed creatures, or something), and enclose each creature's raws in some kind of tag so the script can figure out where they end (whatever tag makes them invisible should suffice), that would be totally sufficient.
Anyway, got another PM from Toady:
I think the main ordering issues are that you need to define the body before you start placing tissues, you need the creature to be named before you use any material templates (or it won't prefix the creature's name properly), and castes should be created after you've defined all the shared caste tokens if you don't want to double them up.
Okay, one more question. Is creating castes "after you've defined all the shared caste tokens" any different from declaring the castes at the beginning and using [SELECT_CASTE:ALL] before the "shared caste tokens"? Thanks again.
The processor has to do extra work, but that's hardly an issue for raw loading. Other than that, there'll only be an issue if there's a bug with the caste copier. In terms of hierarchy and variations, it would be fine to stick the castes up in one of the early variations along with a select all to add the frequency and biome information afterward in the creature itself (or a later variation). You'll have to use a few removes to get whiptail lizards and ants and hermaphrodites (which aren't supported yet anyway) to work right, but that's not really a problem.
The upshot is that we can make the simplifications I mentioned earlier. Each taxon gets a single optional variation (this can just be kept in the page source, too), and a creature's raws just need two sections, between which the script inserts the necessary templates (in the process of exporting the raws to text files).
Okay then, I think that making pygmy shark and bamboo/epaluette sharks smaller is enough 
These are just water animals and player even rarely spends time with them. I guess I'll pay more attention to this when I make land creatures
In my opinion, scale isn't much of a concern. I mean, it's an inherent limitation of tile-based games, so you might as well make the most of it, as long as dragons look vaguely larger than beetles.
Also, those sharks look much better now.
Another another question (sorry if I ask too much!): Should I be worried about adding too many varieties? I know I could add more to gastropoda for example, but should I/we bring the amount of animals (if they exist of course) to the level of the hawks? There are a lot of beetles but there are also a lot of beetle families, but all hawks, OW vultures, and eagles go in one family.
More varieties is fine,
as long as the differences are interesting. A lot of mammal/lizard families have many representatives. However, if a group is getting very big, like
Accipitridae, that's a good sign that you need to further organize it (in this case, it should probably be organized by subfamily).
Oh, Lancensis, is it alright for me to be making up common names like Copper-Breasted and Black-tipped for all the Westerns and Europeans? I figure if there's a dispute we can just change them but it might be easier to do it as I go.
I'm not sure which species you're talking about, but they need some pretty interesting differences to warrant just making up a name for them. If it's just coloration, I'd generally say to just make them a single creature.
Author
Topic: The Ark Project - Help Wanted (Read 71921 times)