Talk:Block factory

I would propose deleting the page (and if possible the Lexicon entry), because 1)it is too short, and 2)it is about a specific kind of factory and thus more appropriate as an example there. Useful for some reasons indeed, but block factory still does not warrant a dedicated glossary page. Thoughts? GUYTU6J (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(PS if that page meets deletion be sure to remove this talk as well)

Sure, the page could be moved to an Examples section in factory -- that seems like a fine idea. I'd suggest that "block factory" could remain as a redirect to "factory" in that case.

Personally I don't want to remove the Lexicon entry, because when I look up "block factory" in Golly, I want to see that link to keeper, and under "keeper" I want to be able to click on that specific block-keeper pattern and open it in a "lexicon" layer. The ideal short-definition Life Lexicon format doesn't always translate perfectly to the LifeWiki, where it might be better to have fewer articles with more detail in each, and maybe more stamp collections in articles like "block factory" or "keeper", showing all of the currently known members of the category... if there aren't too many of them.

The style of these "category-pages" is definitely something that's mostly my fault, and not surprisingly I'm pretty happy with the way these things look now, but I'd also have no problem if people want to change them. The "block factory" and "keeper" articles are good examples of this type of category-page -- and so is the factory article, for that matter.

These are all terms in common use that have well-defined meanings that people might want to look up on the LifeWiki. But infobox-template pages would be inappropriate, because "block factory" and "keeper" and "factory" don't refer to any one specific pattern. It would be fairly misleading to choose any specific pattern and put it in an infobox. But it seems to work quite well to put one or more examples into an embedded viewer, below the definition.

Quite a few terms imported from the Life Lexicon ended up using this non-infobox style. Probably most of them could be successfully turned into redirects to more comprehensive articles, if someone wanted to do the work. But it seems like we still need a non-infobox article style for general topics like factory. What do other people think? Dvgrn (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)