Community Suggestion: Item Templates Need "Related Species".
Item Templates Need "Related Species".
Content Addition · Articles & templates · Created by AmazingChi
declined
temple species ethnicity
What functionality is missing? What is unsatisfying with the current situation?
I'll try to explain this better this time. Sometimes an item isn't attributed to an ethnicity alone. Sometimes an item is related to just a species, or an entire species that has multiple ethnicities. Things like poisons come from specific species, not ethnicities. Similarly, potions and ointment, would need to link to their ingredients - which come from species. Saddles are related to horses, wyverns, whatever other creatures that are rideable in one's world. Silk, from a silkworm (or other fantastical creature of your making). They do not belong to ethnicities at all. Items need both fields to be attributed properly. Yes, certain items will belong to the Mountain Dwarves or the Hill Dwarves, but for instance, the Dwarven Champion's weapon would belong to the Dwarves as a species and not the specific ethnicities. It would not be exclusive to one ethnicity. Related species is critical to many items, and is not simply an ethnicity v species situation. As I listed before the dwarf example, some items are only connected to a species. I would go as far to argue that more would be connected to only a species than only an ethnicity!How does this feature request address the current situation?
Adding "Related Species" fixes that.What are other uses for this feature request?
I'm sure there's other examples, I've not thought of.Follow up
In response to the "who uses this item" argument. That's valid, and that makes sense for the existence of Related Ethnicity. That, however, is not an argument *against* Related Species. Both can exist. This isn't an either/or situation. Both "who uses this item" and "where does this item come from" (I realise Silk would be a material template now, by the way - spur of the moment thinking) are valid relations that could do with a set field in the template. For example, a pesticide would need a "Related Species" because it used on a species, not an ethnicity. The Dwarven Champion's weapon doesn't belong to any ethnicity, it belongs to the Dwarves, full stop, and thus should link to the main Dwarf species. The saddle, is used by everyone that has access to a horse and therefore 'related ethnicity' is essentially meaningless, because it's all of them. But "Related Species" to "Horse" (if you have that article) is sensible. Same with horseshoe etc. If you had a taming device in your world, same principle applies. You might have a related ethnicity, if it's linked to a specific culture, but also a related species, if its a device used to tame a specific species. Species does not exclude ethnicity, nor does ethnicity exclude species. Both are useful to have on the template as a default.
Following up on the item/material situation - yes, as mentioned in the previous follow up, I know I erred on silk. I see the argument for poisons as materials. Potions, however, are items. The potion would need related materials, for its ingredients, but realistically you're not going to have articles for 'Sun Daisy leaves', you're going to have the species article, 'Sun Daisy' (to borrow one of mine), which'll have the reverse information of how its parts are used. So, for potions, having related materials and related species is useful. Same applies to armours and clothes. To fix my silk suggestion. Silk is a material. However, if a culture was known for making a specific high-end silk robe, say, from a specific rare creature's silk. That Silk Robe article would link to the ethnicity/culture that made it, the material, and the creature that it comes from all in one related section. If you had a sharktooth necklace, it may have a related ethnicity, but you are unlikely to have 'sharktooth' as a material (maybe teeth/bone?) You are more likely to have 'Sharks' as a species article (in the same vein as the potion ingredients situation) that you would want to easily link to in that related section. I had a PC make a helmet out of Giant Elk antlers, I'd want to link that to 'Elk'/'Giant Elk' if I ever made that article. As I say, this isn't an either/or. This is to properly complete the 'related' set that the Item template has. It should have all three of those relations, so you can fill in whichever are relevant.
The Team's Response
Thanks for the suggestion! New connections between articles add database load and UI bloat, so we're very careful when considering new connections. After a lengthy discussion within the Team, we still think that items are generally related to ethnicities/cultures, not to species. That's not always the case though, so if you have an item that's related to a species, you can use a custom side panel field to add a link manually in both articles. Article templates have a pre-defined structure, but you also have all the tools you need to be completely free-form if you only use the vignette/introduction text box and the custom fields in the "Sections" tab of the article editor.
Current score
22/300 Votes · +5702 points
Votes Cast
-
+300
by Blossom Tree Art
on 2024-06-25 11:41 -
+300
by Observer of the Stars
on 2024-06-21 10:00 -
+300
by Writing Bishop
on 2024-06-18 03:56 -
+300
by LittleSister
on 2024-06-16 14:36 -
+300
by Imryx
on 2024-06-14 01:29 -
+300
by SebGreg732
on 2024-06-13 11:33 -
+300
by SrSpaceCadet
on 2024-06-13 06:13 -
+300
by Jupiter Melichios
on 2024-06-12 03:11 -
+300
by HunterChristmas1247
on 2024-06-11 17:43 -
+300
by Maz_Cat
on 2024-06-11 10:56 -
+300
by SnowKT
on 2024-06-10 15:40 -
+1
by WildBuzzard2353
on 2024-06-10 11:22 -
+1
by A Glamorous Orc
on 2024-06-10 10:24I think a lot of your examples are mixing up materials and items (anything a species naturally produces, like silk or poisons, would likely be a material) but I think a field for items used on/against/with certain species could be useful, for things like horseshoes and such (where the ethnicity field could refer to the people making/using them, and the species would be domesticated horses).
-
+300
by Goose80
on 2024-06-10 02:42 -
+300
by Dragolithic
on 2024-06-09 20:14 -
+300
by Masha Medov
on 2024-06-09 01:24 -
+100
by Tankium
on 2024-06-08 21:28 -
+300
by JetpackMonkey
on 2024-06-08 12:34 -
-100
by Amancham
on 2024-06-08 09:26I am changing my vote on this, after giving it some consideration. I understand the reasoning the team gave in their response. The related Ethnicity answers the question "who uses this item". As for the related species given in your example, it still makes sense to go with ethnicity over species. While it is true, that a poison comes from a specific species, it is unlikely an entire species makes use of said poison.
So a way of doing it would be: species -> extended -> biological traits -> species produces poison X that is very potent and so on.
Item -> construction -> materials & components -> mention the species that produces the poison here
Item -> categorization -> related ethnicity -> link to all ethnicities that use this poison for anything
Ethnicity -> depending on where the item is used, you can link to said item in any of the text fields. e.g. they use the poison for hunting or for ointments or whatever else.
You can link to several ethnicities, so in case of dwarven champion's weapons, you can link to all the related ethnicities, not just one.
Same goes with the example of a saddle. Wyverns, horses and so on do not use the saddle, the saddle is used by e.g. certain human ethnicities on those creatures. I would probably go with the "uses, byproducts & exploitation" area linking to the item to say that it is used to ride them. And to go with horses and saddles, not all of humanity uses saddles to ride on horses (e.g. desert or jungle tribes), nor are all horses ridden by humans (e.g. wild horses).
Also, saddle would be a very broad term. You can't use the same saddle on a horse, that would be used on a camel. Just like there are specific saddles for recreational riding vs. jumping or racing, western vs. english and so on.
While, yes, silk comes from a silk worm, the item "silk" only has a (more or less widespread) use to certain ethnicities, not the species "silk worm" itself (the fact they produce silk would go in their biology). Some ethnicities use silkworms and their silk to earn money by processing it. Others only use the processed silk and others, again only wear the item procuded by using processed silk.
TLDR: I'm giving this a 'no' since, after much consideration, the related ethnicitiy makes a lot more sense than a related species would and linking to species for ingredients is always possible via mentions or using the key-value code and creating a list of all the items that are used on or produced by a species, if you want that for more clarity at first glance. I understand why this was declined the first time around. -
+300
by A Wild Hobbit
on 2024-06-07 20:38 -
+300
by WeStanNikolai
on 2024-06-07 14:55 -
+300
by Ratha
on 2024-06-07 14:53 -
+300
by AmazingChi
on 2024-06-07 10:09
Find your way!
Resources
WHO WE ARE
LEGAL
Listen to our Podcast
by 3 Armored Kittens · Prodromos v.1.1 - World Anvil 0.9.15.050 © 2017-2025 [en] | Anvil Time: 19:08, Oct 12 2026