Template talk:Planes of the Multiverse

Planechase split

Curious as to the thought process behind splitting out the planes that have been seen in Planechase. Is the goal to highlight those planes as ones that may actually have some world-building and are thus plausible targets for a future set (unlike the "Other planes" list, which is a collection of planes known only by off-hand mentions)? While I don't disagree with the possibility of sorting the planes this way, what does it accomplish for the reader of the wiki? What meaningfully separates those planes from those in the "Other settings" list? Is there a better label for either "Other planes" or "Other settings" to reduce the confusion between those labels? I don't want to revert without offering a chance to talk, but this change doesn't seem like a good idea to me. --Corveroth (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in my last edition, I had the goal to highlight one planes from the others. I don't see bad having several labels... Why not? With a simple view, now you see from the bunch of not common planes those which have been pictured on Planechase and those which are only off-hand mentions. That distinction is useful for a lot of people? I don't know. Is useful for me and a few vorthoses? May be. And yes, if you know a better/clearer name for those labels, feel free to put those names. --Tuamir (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Planechase-only" seems like a terrible label choice. For once no less than 11 of those planes are directly or indirectly referred elsewhere in the Magic canon, some on actual cards! Not to mention that two of them (Arkhos and Mongseng) were renamed into the settings of later blocks (Theros and Tarkir, respectively). Circeus (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't feel like Planechase stardom is enough to warrant a split, but I'll play along for the time being. I've rearranged the table a bit to reflect the apparent logic: "places we've been in a block", "places Creative gave a tentative okay to", "other places that might plausibly be used", "other planes and plane-related accessories". --Corveroth (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain the revert? --Corveroth (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edition was a bit chaotic, messing with the order, as putting planes like Shandalar, Fiora and such as less important planes as the others in Planechase. Let me explain, there is an order of inclusion in the classification, like "Block planes" ⊆ "Set planes" ⊆ "Planechase planes" ⊆ "All planes", and I think that order needs to be maintained independently of the number of labels and their names. --Tuamir (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Block Settings?

How are Rabiah and Ulgrotha considered block settings? They were only seen in Arabian Nights and Homelands, respectively, neither of which is in a block. --172.112.59.55 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. You could argue that Homelands was part of the Ice Age Block and therefore technically Ulgrotha could be considered a block setting. I think the term is not well chosen since Mercadia only appears for one expansion and not the whole block. Serra's Realm would also be such a weird location. I would say settings which appeared in magic expansions. Or we really focus on the settings which were represented in a block. I am up to suggestions how to make this proper. - Yandere Sliver 19:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest Major Settings (which would include the "Block" group and Fiora), Minor Settings (including the entire "Print" group, and I remain unconvinced that splitting out Planechase is valuable), and Other Known Planes (consisting of those we only know by name). --Corveroth (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I really like your idea, but maintaining the split between Planechase planes and non-Planechase planes :P --Tuamir (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the Planechase split is valuable, since it often just mentioned the name of the Plane, but is was never a "setting" in sense of a story. So perhaps just "Story settings" (story as link to Magic Story), "Planechase planes", "Other known planes". - Yandere Sliver 08:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(reset) I did update the Nav. Basically every plane which had a major story appearence and was featured on a black border card is no in the Magic Story Settings row. Everything which had an appearance in Planechase is in the Featured in Planechase column. And the rest is the Rest. - Yandere Sliver 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Tolvada

This plane is not featured in any Plane card but it's featured in a Battle card. What would you do? --Tuamir (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the current structure of the navbox and the above discussions, I think it stays where it is. It hasn't been on a Planechase card and it hasn't been story setting in the sense that there's a block or set that's used it as a base plane. To be honest, Invasion of Tolvada // The Broken Sky doesn't really give us any more information about the plane than we had prior to its release. -- RivalRowan (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that most Planechase cards give us much information themselves - I'd support just removing the word "plane" from that section so it says "Seen on cards" and moving Tolvada (and Skalla) up a section. Appearing on cards at all at least makes them more fleshed out and potentially viable for a visit than most other planes. RudleyDudley (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Magic Story Set Settings order

Is there any reason why the planes listed in the Magic Story Set Settings are in release order while the rest of the nav box is in alphabetic order? -- RivalRowan (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)