Template talk:Buildings

Strategy Section?
What do you guys think of this as a template? I have a strategies section because it makes sense for the mines and energy sources. Also what about listing the output levels for up to lvl 30? eh? Opinions?--Master Bob 02:56, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think a building needs strategies, everything that could be put in there can be in the description. Also, the Terraformer costs energy. We could probably just use or something like that. I don't think output is needed, instead, we should have a seperate page for that (up to 50 or so). Only the mines and plants produce stuff. I don't really like the name either, "Building" would be a bit better and more descriptive. -- Jeffoh (talk) 12:23, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a place for stratefies. Maybe not necesarily in each building section, but there is one. Specifically involved with the whole fusion vs solar vs sat debate. Output to 50, i personally think is unrealistic, since i think the highest anyone has gotten to is 30. What about having each of those sections (strategies, etc) as variables themself and just using them where needed? Name can be changed once this becomes a real template. --Master Bob 23:58, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The solplant vs fusion plant vs solsat debate can go somewhere else, it doesn't make much sense to replicate the same thing thrice. The highest mines are around 35 so 35 would do. Maybe we could just have a "usage" section instead of strategies for/against, it'd apply to nearly all buildings. -- Jeffoh (talk) 01:28, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Statistics?
Then "we" (a script) make one for every mine and storage. We could also choose to have one table for costs and another for output/storage with the buildings as headers. -- Jeffoh (talk) 12:54, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Redgarding Statistics/Cost/Output, it seems that they should all be under one variable, perhaps; for depending on which building, the title's differ. For example with mines it would work as is, but with say the tanks, output would be better titled Storage. Though it seems if there is an output(going to lvl 30) there should be one for cost as well . . . Im not sure how I feel about that. --Master Bob 23:54, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How about something like this? (values are made up because I'll just write a script for it if we're going to use this)
 * How about something more like this, except with the spacing correct:

1 500

2 1000 --Master Bob 02:05, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC) --Jeffoh (talk) 12:31, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion...

Scripting

 * You said you could script it? Uh make it so?--Master Bob 23:48, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it'd be easy to make a PHP script to output the entire table with the proper values and everything. Tons easier than doing it by yourself. I'll make a script later. -- Jeffoh (talk) 07:44, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The future is now. I can still switch around the table format and I'll probably remove energy / deut costs. -- Jeffoh (talk) 17:53, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Usage + Description merge?
I think I have changed my mind and agree that everything should go under descption, hence no Usage. . . but I think the name should be changed to cover both, if possible. What do you think?--Master Bob 02:21, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Good but I can't think of a good name.--Jeffoh (talk) 09:33, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * How about 'Basic Principles'? --Master Bob 22:33, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Decent, I guess. I think just "Description" would cover both the actual description and the usage. --Jeffoh (talk) 23:06, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * How about Operations?--Master Bob 06:25, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)