Category talk:Shapechanger creatures

Redundant category

This category appears to be redundant based on the presence of the far more commonly used Category:Shapechanger subtype creatures. If this category is meant for specific, unique shapeshifter characters like Avinash Jurrg and Simandu then it should likely be renamed, or deleted otherwise. The subtype category could then be renamed to the name of this category for clarity. --Rexert (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rexert, a quick look and Category:Shapechanger subtype creatures handles the 1E-only subtype applied to creatures while Category:Shapechanger creatures handles those with the 'Shapechanger' trait in 2E. So, they are both needed for specific purposes. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. Separating the same ability into two categories seems unintuitive to me, especially if both the 1e and 2e versions happen to have the same subtype and trait, requiring two of essentially the same category for one page. I wonder if there's a better solution for this. --Rexert (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It also seems like this leads to creatures that do in fact shapeshift not being categorized as shapeshifters if they don't have the trait in their 2E statblock, like the Jorogumo. I find that problematic. --Rexert (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You'll find a fair few such categories if you look, but they are doing a simple job: just collating together 1E subtype creatures and 2E trait creatures - nothing more. We also add links from the category page to the other-edition equivalent too. There are instances where the 2E version of a creature is quite different from its 1E incarnation too, but the mechanical traits are categorized how they are presented without subjective decisions. Furthermore, if Paizo chooses not to grant, say, a Shapechanger trait to a shapechanging creature, that's also not the fault of the current category system. So, there may be a better way, but it'll be additive to the current mechanical edition categories to do a different job. I hope I've explained it better this time? --Fleanetha (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. In that case, would creating a Category:Shapeshifters be appropriate after all? And if so, should such a category only contain creatures without the 1E subset and 2E trait, or would all shapeshifting creatures of all types and traits belong there? Having three separate categories for the same form of classification seems excessive though. --Rexert (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. I think better as Category:Shapeshifters not Category:Shapeshifter, as we use singular in the category tree for creatures, whereas this new category is not for a creature called a 'shapechanger'. In your new category, you could place any creature that had the ability to change shape regardless of mechanical traits or subtypes. I don't see it as excessive if it's doing a new, useful job. --Fleanetha (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Belatedly agree with all Fleanetha says above, and with the creation of a generic category.

While having three separate categories for the same form of classification does seem excessive, it is a side effect of the nature of documenting a reality that can be, and frequently is, arbitrarily changed by its creators. Mechanical and canon changes sometimes result in creatures needing to be classified in ways that would otherwise seem conflicting (like some magical beasts and animals classified differently as beasts or animals in 2E, and some inevitable-related monitors reclassified by the Remaster).

Generic categories also allow us to categorize subjects that lack any mechanics, such as those that appear only in fiction or lack statblocks, alongside those that are more clearly mechanically defined.

Our category guidance is also probably lacking in clarity or completeness with the explosion of edition- and revision-specific categories we now have to deal with. -Oznogon (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)