Template talk:Creature types

CSS is the worst

I'd like the top two rows to be evenly spaced, so that the colors line up in each, but there's something really dodgy going on with the column width. Maybe later. --Corveroth (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. navbox's hlist class is setting display: inline, while columns rely on it being list-item. --Corveroth (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Elder type

What we do with Elder? Because it's a race for the Dominarian dragons, and it's a class for the Tarkiran dragons. --Tuamir (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I never really thought of that distinction, for me it is one of the odd creature types like Sand or Wall, which simply do not go well with the race/class model. When in doubt it is a Race I would say. - Yandere Sliver 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My logic had been that if it ever appears as the sole creature type, it must be a race - everything has a physical type, if not a profession. But there are some odd ones, so I've sent an ask towards Maro hoping for clarification. Should probably check the mothership (circa Grand Creature Type Update?) for any useful information. --Corveroth (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, another similar case: drone and spawn, both they were used as races until the Eldrazi used them as classes. --Tuamir (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah race/class is always a vague split. Even if you definition makes sense, Corv. We have Adarkar Sentinel which is only a soldier, but where you can argue that artifact does the race duty... And then you have Arcanis the Omnipotent, who simply has an unknown race... - Yandere Sliver 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In light of these complications, I'd be okay with removing the distinction from the navbox entirely (save for the independently relevant iconic/characteristic groups). --Corveroth (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Iconic/Characteristic

Just plopping this link down for later reference. Feel free to jump on it if y'all feel compelled. --Corveroth (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Race categorisation

I'm curious on whether certain categories have precedence over others. Some listed strike me as misplaced regardless.

• Phoenix, Juggernaut, Masticore, Specter and Shade could probably be listed as mechanically themed types.
  • Nymph has a potential one as "all enchantments". Wraith's all-swampwalk may be a bit loose if "has flying" doesn't count, as it probably shouldn't. Skeleton has "doesn't stay dead" as a theme, but it changes as a mechanic.
  • Weird doesn't seem to have a mechanical theme. Incarnation has three themes, which is an odd way to define it. Moonfolk is an interesting case in that the 14 printed in Kamigawa block have a theme and 13 afterwards do not, with Erayo and Tameshi swapping times and themes.
• Mite (1 nontoken), Fractal (1 nontoken) and Pest (3 nontoken) should probably all be treated similarly. Thopter is interesting to consider, with 18 cards and 42 token makers.
• Gargoyle seems to be more of an Artifact type rather than multicolored. Reflection shouldn't be there at all - it's closer to a token-specific and the only Reflection typed creature is a colorless transformed artifact.

114.76.200.191 06:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notable obsolete types

What criteria are we using for listing the notable types in the Obsolete section? I can understand Chephalid, Naga, and Viashino because they were recently obsoleted and have a body of cards but is Mantis notable with one card in Mirage? Is Anemone notable only because it was never printed on the one card that had it briefly? With just two cards, why does Smith get called out but Fiend does not? I don't have a problem with where things are placed now but I'm just not sure why they're placed there. -- RivalRowan (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a comment in the template about that. Right now its basically just "Those with an article and not a redirect". Lol pie (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a bad criteria because what happens if an editor makes an article for every obsolete type? I don't have a good alternative at the moment though. Let me think on it. -- RivalRowan (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I’ve been slowly making them myself and moving them up as I do so. If we get to the point where they all have one then I’d probably just remove the notable part and have it split just by race/class or color similar to the non obsolete ones. I’m fine renaming the sections though. I think I was the one who named it “notable” originally just because it was the first thing I thought of back then. At the time I also just couldn’t think of anything better. Lol pie (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

At the time I think it made sense. Especially when the majority were redirects. Having thought on it a bit, I think removing the categories and just using color is the best option. The bulk of the obsolete types are races and we're retroactively applying the race/class model to things that were never part of that system in the first place. The individual articles will can explain where they would fit race/class wise. Because a lot of the obsolete types are just single cards, and thus monocolored, it will help reduce the number of mana symbols in the navbox and make things a clearer. Thoughts? -- RivalRowan (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that trying to shoehorn older types into the race/class model is nonsensical. You might have an interesting lens if you split the list into just two groups: one for the ancient stuff that's a relic of the original Summon type lines, and one for types obsoleted after the transition away from that. I think any other distinction you might impose is too arbitrary, and not very obvious to the typical reader looking at the navbox. --Corveroth (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I did an initial re-organization of the obsolete section. I split both by color but also by single versus multi use types to better highlight ones used more often. Lol pie (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)