Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-24203813-20160112230454/@comment-24024415-20160113222854

TheHandsomePlant wrote: TheHandsomePlant wrote: I might have misworded it. By separation rules, I'd like to say that these two criterias below must meet the requirements in order to be merged:

- Do both of the features share the same name?

- Do both of the features look similar? (the differences such as 2D and 3D view matter too)

If both of these are positive, they should be merged. If they don't, they should be separated otherwise. Ok, that's more clear. But the system is flawed, even though Cactus works well for it.

Grave Buster, Spikeweed and Dandelion all fall under the seperation group. While I can agree that Dandelion needs to be split (does not share resemblence nor share gameplay features), the other two would produce pages that would be identical in terms of strategy. Grave Buster would be used to remove graves from the yard, regardless of game or world differences. Spikeweed is a ground plant that breaks crushing objects, common between both games.

And yes, I sound like the Opposers examplified in the thread that argue of repeat information. But the information concerned here is literally duplicate in both instances, while Cactus is free from these duplicate strategies.



I suggest a compromise; aesthetic of a plant is an influence in the speration process, but gameplay features also hold weight. This would prevent splitting of plants whose function is largely unchanged (Spikeweed, ect) and those who resemble previous iterations very closely (Cactus).