Talk:List of planeswalker characters

I know this article overlaps quite a bit with the planeswalkers category, but I think this article is more useful as a list of 'walkers than the category since its more easy to find the distinction between pre/post rev walkers as well as unconfirmed 'walkers and demoted 'walkers on this list. Plus this list is (almost) complete, whereas the category does not include info on the 'walkers that not yet have their own articles. The Squirle master 04:15, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

As we found that in Planeswalker book, Yawgmoth is called planeswalker by Serra and Urza (and evrybody assumed that until The Thran revised it), we should remove him from the list of pre-rev planeswalkers... or maybe some other pre-rev source mentioned him to be one? MORT 06:24, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Blackblade

Should be be added to the post revisionist list without a card? Dominaria calls him a planeswalker.--J spencer93 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you mean Dakkon Blackblade, not the sword? Can you point us to the relevant text? --Hunter (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It is in one of the Dominaria stories. I will look it up. - Yandere Sliver 07:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is the first Dominaria story. That was a quick search: Return to Dominaria, Part 1 - Yandere Sliver 07:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Needle hesitated. The disciple at her side said, "It's said it was the Planeswalker Dakkon Bl—" is prob the most relevant part. So he is a planeswalker for sure in the new continuity. --J spencer93 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, feel free to make the necessary improvements --Hunter (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I added him. The Wanderer and Davirel need added and updated. I put Davirel but I am not sure what to make his description. Teyo as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J spencer93 (talk • contribs).

Apologize for not signing my post. Forgot. Anyways, added The Wander and Teyo and described them as best as possible while following the format of the others. --J spencer93 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Planeswalker's colors

Why are we suddenly splitting them amongst main and secondary colors? Also for the person that made they changes, they made a mistake. It was confirmed Ajani and Huatli lost Red, not that it's a secondary color.I am not against this change as I think it is more accurate but can we make it correct atleast? As it brings up an issue with walkers with confirmed secondary type like Davriel who aren't displayed on their card, so it almost would fit better on their pages. --J spencer93 (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I renamed previously to secondary, because I though that made a bit more sense. But I can change it back I have no strong feelings about that. - Yandere Sliver 04:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is they are 2 different things. Nissa is green and secondary blue. Ajani is white and secondary green, he lost red. So red isn't secondary, he no longer has it. This would be hard to show in the template. Good info for their pages though.

Also Rosewater explained multicolored walkers may appear as only their primary colors in this set, that doesn't make Blue on Nissa "previously" although it is "secondary" because she still has access to blue mana. I think you misunderstood that they were separate things.--J spencer93 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean the current logic is more or less to put in the color of the last planeswalker card they had and add every color they had in a previous incarnation in the "secondary/previously" list. "Previously" is probably the better term because it establishes chronology.

That is a simple rule to follow and is also not ambiguous. Note that we only list the color and type information for characters which have a card, so it is literally the card information displayed there. - Yandere Sliver 04:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Although true, that doesn't make a ton of sense as we know Nissa and Tamiyo haven't lost their other colors though. Although I do believe this is the first time we ever getting a printing of a Planeswalker that does not match their confirmed manga types, is it not? (PS. Searching for the link on Blogatog where he tackles this)--J spencer93 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/183915397008/so-nahiri-is-an-uncommon-because-no-other

Honestly it would make more sense to only put previously on those we know are previous. Below he directly handles this. By putting previously we are flat out putting false info on several. I know it's a little annoying but a wiki should show factual info.PS: love the change with the red X and Green checks, Its a good way to condense the page somewhat. --J spencer93 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/183849229298/was-nissas-change-back-to-mono-colour-story-or

I was a bit fast with Tamiyo. Her latest card is not revealed yet, but we know it will not be a tri colored card and will probably be mono blue. (So yeah, I jumped the gun on this one.)

Nissa on the other hand lost blue. She had quite a lot of iterations after her GU experiment which show her as mono G walker, so yeah for whatever reason she stopped using blue mana. So she is G, previously U.

Ajani's last cards were always white/green so that is his color identity white and green. He no longer utilizes red therefore red is listed under previously. Same goes for Huatli.

In the end the current solution does reflect where the character currently stands and also trails that characters past experiences with different colors. - Yandere Sliver 05:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean simplest solution would be to remove all color information from the nav, but that would be a bit sad imo. - Yandere Sliver 05:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dude....this is literally nissa's only card after the GU nissa except genesis mage (which she was confirmed having blue still in story at that time), what are you talking about? Also no, they are listed under previously as it has literally been stated they lost those colors, same with Sarkhan. You keep stating things that are flat out false.Also Rosewater above stating cards dont have a color just for this set doesn't = losing them. I am sorry, but rosewater's statements trump yours. --J spencer93 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest continuing the discussion here Template talk:Planeswalker, because that is the proper place. - Yandere Sliver 06:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Niv-Mizzet

Niv-Mizzet is not prerevesionist nor is he an elder dragon. Can people that don't know Magic stop changing this page. Noticed it was Yander....not sure why, do you have a source for it? Your literally putting whatever you want at this point without proof. Undid edits until an actual discussion could be held about the changes with rosewaters statements above taken into account. Also, based on the fact was added Niv Mizzet to prerevisionist elder dragons. --J spencer93 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you please refer to the edit I made? I am pretty sure that I did not make Niv-Mizzet a pre-revisionist planeswalker. I mean he isn't even on this page. What are you talking about? - Yandere Sliver 05:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the mention of you as I made that mistake, someone added him to elder dragons at 5:03 under not planeswalkers. Its in the page history. And yea, he isn't on it because I removed him...also the history shows only me and you edited this page. This is childish as hell.--J spencer93 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of other people editing this page. In fact this is a page I hardly touch. I searched for the edit where Niv-Mizzet was moved to the Elder Dragons. Here it is: https://mtg.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=List_of_planeswalkers&diff=prev&oldid=90112

That being said, your tone is currently unacceptable. You are surely very knowledgeable and passionate. That however gives you not the right to belittle other users and make wild accusations. Please temper yourself and we can discuss things further. - Yandere Sliver 06:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I literally said I made that mistake. I also didn't make a wild accusation, I mistyped and removed the mistype from above.I will apologize for thinking it was you (apparently I misread the history page, sue me). lol also...are we in medieval times, temper myself? Btw it was early morning here when I was posting last night, that is prob why i misread the history page --J spencer93 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed Walkers

Noticed someone added the Vishano walker so I added a few others that were unnamed. I will reread book to get better descriptions.--J spencer93 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrenn and Six

New Planeswalker Wrenn and Six needs a page. Info comes out at 11 EST today. Correction, the planeswalker is Wrenn, Six is one of his at least six treefolk he can pilot--J spencer93 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Surviving Walkers

https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/186017603928/how-has-modern-horizons-been-doing-as-far-as-sales Ill repost this here, but confirmation that out of all named walkers, only 3 died. So I removed the "they survived" or "its unknown if they did" from all the pages.--J spencer93 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Un-planeswalkers

Can we add a section for Un-planeswalkers: B.O.B., Comet and Space Beleren??

Sure --Hunterofsalvation (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unconfirmed spark status after Omenpath chaos

Can you add an indicator that some planeswalkers have an unknown status if they still retained their spark? For example, we recently confirmed that Kaito is still a planeswalker while the Wanderer isn't anymore. Unconfirmed planeswalkers should have a separate section or at least an indicator about their unknown status. My two cents. Thanks!

Consolidated table

I consolidated all confirmed planeswalkers into a single filterable table. I'd appreciate feedback on a few things:

• I couldn't find an elegant way to incorporate "pre-Mending" vs. "post-Mending" due to the many characters who count as both. The previous version of this page grouped them separately, with duplicate entries for Bolas and the like. I don't want to use duplicate entries, but if possible I would like a clean visual indicator separating e.g. Urza from e.g. Jace.
• How do people feel about the color-coding of the "Status" column? I'm not sure myself. Other options include coloring in the entire row based on status, color-coding the "Name" column instead of the "Status" column (but the color would still based on Status), and of course getting rid of the colors.

(Ideally I'd also like to bring this page up to speed with MTG Wiki:Lore Policy, but the early storyline is not my strong spot.) --Inktog (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Love the work! I'm personally not a big fan of tables on the Wiki but only because they don't look great on mobile devices. That's not an issue right now, while we don't have a mobile skin, but something to keep in mind in the future. As for feedback:

A) if you incorporate the Date column from the Igniting table, you can put the "pre-Mending", "post-Mending", "post-Desparkening" status in brackets there. I don't think you'll get a clean visual indicator though because WotC can do all sorts of shenanigans. Like Sarkhan Vol, who erased his birth and spark ignition from time. Is he a pre-Mending walker because he started existing when he went back to ancient Tarkir? What about Karn? Urza's spark was a pre-Mending spark that Karn gained pre-Mending, but Venser's spark was a pre-Mending spark that he gained post-Mending. Would that make Karn both?

B) I don't mind the way you've color coded the status column. I would keep it to just that column, or the table starts to get messy. You might need to add a fourth color for "latent spark" (i.e. has spark but has not ignited). We haven't had anyone fit that description for a while but they may pop up.

In thinking about your queries, I've reevaluated my thinking about this article. I don't think I'm clear on what question this article is supposed to be answering. We have Planeswalker and Planeswalker type covering the card components, so this table should be exclusive to the lore components. If that's the case, then I don't think the playable column should be included. I probably need to think about it a bit more. -- RivalRowan (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking solid. I added some metadata to change the sorting order for the Status column, so that when sorted, it goes in order of Active, Desparked, Unknown, Dead. I felt that was the most natural order, rather than alphabetical. I'm not invested in the pre/post/DoB discussion. My remaining suggestion right now: probably don't need to small the Unknowns. --Corveroth (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (and for the extra functionality, corv)! I agree that the the Playable column should probably go, as long as no one else objects. I like the idea of adding the Date Sparked column, although I don't think I'd want to write out "pre-Mending" or "post-Mending" every time. Maybe we could use a † footnote to indicate pre-Mending ascensions? Or something like that. I hadn't even considered tables on mobile, so thank you for pointing that out; I was drawn to a table because of how messy the page had gotten with multiple subdivisions of bulleted lists, so hopefully there's some good implementation of tables for mobile (when the time comes to worry about that). I think actually just going to get rid of the Unknowns from the Plane of Origin column (and un-small the other ones) because "Unknown plane of origin" is not as useful a tidbit "Status unknown". --Inktog (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I would be most interested in adding a "Last seen" column. For recent characters, that can be a link to a set. For older characters (mostly the pre-Mirage ones), an approximate "~x BP" (with a tooltip explaining "Before Present"). That could even be given as a year in AR, fed into a BP template so that only the template needs to be updated when our reckoning of the current date shifts... --Corveroth (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I know some people don't like them, but I personally am in favor of the table. I've felt the article could use it for a while; the previous separation of the list seemed almost random and confusing to navigate. My thoughts:

1. I know that this is part of the lore page, but I think the playable column is an interesting one for most readers and without it it feels like we'd need to duplicate most of this table into the gameplay article.

2. I'd be in favor of incorporating the ignition table into this one, maybe shortening or removing the Description column entirely? I could see that including the pre-/post-mending info as mentioned above.

3. I'm also not against a "Last seen" column, maybe listing the year in AR and the last media they appeared in (set, book, etc.)? RudleyDudley (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Minor characters

(Mostly a separate topic from the above.) I removed the language of "revisionist" and "prerevisionist" from this page (per WikiProject Lore Policy). Originally, I was going to add all the confirmed pre-Mirage planeswalkers to the table. However, skimming through their articles I noticed that a lot of them seemed like pretty minor characters who only showed up in one or two stories, and I don't want to clutter the table with characters who aren't that notable. So I created a new "Minor characters" section. But I'm not a big Vorthos, especially with the early story, so I probably got some stuff wrong.

• If the table contains any minor characters, they should be moved to the list of minor characters (unless they have their own planeswalker or legendary creature card; I think that's notable enough for table inclusion).
• If the list of minor characters contains anyone who's actually pretty important to the early storyline, they should be moved to the table.
• If the planeswalker status of any character in the "Confirmed planeswalker" section (minor or otherwise) is contested—not just "They showed up before Mirage and were never heard from again", but "Source X says they're a planeswalker and source Y says they're not"—then they should be moved to the Conflicting Sources section.

And of course, I'm open to better ideas about how to handle this. --Inktog (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)