Template talk:Planes of the Multiverse: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>Tuamir mNo edit summary |
>Circeus |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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. --[[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk:Corveroth|talk]]) 01:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | 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. --[[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tuamir|Tuamir]] ([[User talk:Tuamir|talk]]) 07:50, 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. --[[User:Tuamir|Tuamir]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] ([[User talk:Circeus|talk]]) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:04, 1 September 2015
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)