Template talk:Hallucinogenic mushrooms

Fungi Template‑class

	Fungi portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Rename Template[edit]

The template do not only list the Psilocybe genus but also several other psilocybe mushrooms: Conocybe, Galerina, Gymnopilus, Inocybe, ,Mycena, Panaeolus, Pholiotina, Pholiotina. Also, I added muscimol mushrooms.

The template should therefore be renamed from "Template:Psilocybe mushrooms" to "Template:Hallucinogenic mushrooms" (that is already used in most articles) but a redirect page already occupy that name. --Jilja (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is currently underway to rename the main Psilocybin mushroom page as well. In the mean time, I will go ahead with the move for this template to Template:Psilocybin mushroom because it is factually incorrect otherwise. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Upper casing"[edit]

I believe it's okay for a template's subtitle links to have lower case? Not sure, please discuss if noteworthy, thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The items upper-cased weren't subtitles (which have been left alone) but entry-headers in the 'Above' section, usually upper-cased. Could have just reverted manually and left the note. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant to refer to those entry-headers. I think the old way looked better, not sure if there was a rule, just my $0.02. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three should be upper-cased. Looks have nothing to do with it (although to me the upper cased also look better), entries upper-cased and most sub-sections (those in parenthesis) lower-cased seems Wikipedia-normal. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No well I think it better fits the format and is consistent with other templates, too. Looking for whatever examples I could find, the template's current convention is likened within these other templates' heads:

Altanner1991 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although come to think of it the 'Above' entries could be moved to a 'Related' section. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts pull a debate as to the capitalization of inner-elements, too (the ones within parentheses). Altanner1991 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And...you reverted again even after you correctly upper cased the first one. Either the stand-alone entries (not sub-sections, which are upper-cased if proper names) are all upper-cased or they aren't (they are). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the consensus for years. Please do not edit war as it can be reported. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on upper-case if it includes the elements within the parentheses, but I still feel better about using lowercase in these instances. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]