Talk:Manland
More inclusive language
Coverag, many content producers and many players are starting to use "creature lands" instead of manlands. This is a pretty painless way to make mtg more inclusive. I think this wiki should consider changing this article's title and other references to manlands to creature lands too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.62.5 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 May 2016.
- we need to differ it from Land creatures --Hanmac (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is also the most common term, it has little to do with inclusiveness but what is most common. I like the term landfolk, which is inclusive and distinct enough from land creature, but nobody would search for landfolk. You simply search for Manlands, ant that is why the article is named this way. - Yandere Sliver
17:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, WotC's endorsement counts for something. Consider the history of battle lands, which saw aggressive editing until Wizards' naming was clear and the page was protected against anonymous users. Or, for comparison, Google Trends as a measure of popularity: tango vs battle, creature vs man. While "manlands" did see a large spike in popularity during the BFZ spoiler season, it does not otherwise hold the commanding lead "battle lands" does. In light of this, and in keeping with WotC's official nomenclature and desire for inclusiveness, I support moving this page to Creature lands and leaving a redirect. --Corveroth (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think if we move this to Creature lands we should merge it with Land creatures to prevent Confusion. --Hanmac (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, WotC's endorsement counts for something. Consider the history of battle lands, which saw aggressive editing until Wizards' naming was clear and the page was protected against anonymous users. Or, for comparison, Google Trends as a measure of popularity: tango vs battle, creature vs man. While "manlands" did see a large spike in popularity during the BFZ spoiler season, it does not otherwise hold the commanding lead "battle lands" does. In light of this, and in keeping with WotC's official nomenclature and desire for inclusiveness, I support moving this page to Creature lands and leaving a redirect. --Corveroth (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is also the most common term, it has little to do with inclusiveness but what is most common. I like the term landfolk, which is inclusive and distinct enough from land creature, but nobody would search for landfolk. You simply search for Manlands, ant that is why the article is named this way. - Yandere Sliver
- The problem I have with google trends is that it is a strange comparison. I added land creatures which dwarfs the other two results because... Land creatures is a common term for land animals.
- I tried searching for creature lands because I thought that might be insightful what people will find and non of the results I get is particularly helpful (http://creaturesland.com/ and http://www.el-wiki.net/Creatures). Actually the only helpful result is the Wizards article where they explain that they will say "creature" lands instead of manlands for more inclusive language. (I know that after reading this I would start googling manlands.)
- I only gain helpful results when I add 'mtg'. This is the green line I added and as you can see no one is search for that. Creature lands is simply not a good name, manlands has also problems but at least you find what you are looking for. - Yandere Sliver 07:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dryad Arbor
I excluded Dryard Arbor from the article since it doesn't meet the first definition given in the article and land creatures have their own article. - Yandere Sliver 01:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Then make manlands a subsection of Land Creatures or Land Creatures a subsection of Manlands. A Land Creature is a Manland, by definition. Them having separate makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it make any sense, to devote an entire page just to Dryad Arbor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.68.74.108 (talk • contribs) 2017-01-03T05:00.
- I agree to a certain degree. My problem is the first sentence we have in the article defining a manland as "a land card that can inherently turn itself into a creature". Dryad Arbor simply falls out of this definition as it currently stands (we can obviously change that, it is a slang term and not a rules term after all). Vehicles are a good analogy. They are not always artifact creatures, they can turn into artifact creature. Similar to that manlands (at least following the definition we are currently using) can turn into land creatures, but are not land creatures. That is why the definition given in the first sentence makes sense to me and that is also why we currently have the split. I am open to change, that is why we have this discussion. - Yandere Sliver 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Yandere Sliver. --Tuamir (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree to a certain degree. My problem is the first sentence we have in the article defining a manland as "a land card that can inherently turn itself into a creature". Dryad Arbor simply falls out of this definition as it currently stands (we can obviously change that, it is a slang term and not a rules term after all). Vehicles are a good analogy. They are not always artifact creatures, they can turn into artifact creature. Similar to that manlands (at least following the definition we are currently using) can turn into land creatures, but are not land creatures. That is why the definition given in the first sentence makes sense to me and that is also why we currently have the split. I am open to change, that is why we have this discussion. - Yandere Sliver
Man land or manland?
Man land for consistency? --Hunter (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)