Template talk:Creature types navbox
|
This is the discussion page for the template Creature types navbox. Please discuss major changes to the template here. | |
|---|---|
|
|
2E type traits
Is this navbox's 2E section supposed to list all creature types in 2E (as listed in the final appendices in each Bestiary) or all creature traits? The name of the template suggests the former, but currently it's the latter in practice. - HTD (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Which do you think is more useful, HTD? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The former, since this is, well, the creature type navbox (and not the creature trait navbox); it is rather inconsistent that the 1E section only lists types but the 2E section lists all traits. That and I think that some of the traits, like Amphibious or Aquatic, cannot really have articles in their own right. - HTD (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I agree with HTD, we don't want each traits to have its own article. I wonder if perhaps we should get rid of the navbox altogether, and just note the various traits/types in the categories. The terms are not used "in-world" and make for less than great pages on their own. Mostly they just end up as stubs with lists of various creatures of that type, which is not what we should be aiming for, IMO. I would prefer articles just to be about "in-world" things, and not abstract game terms; we can leave the latter pages for the Archives of Nethys. I know we have exceptions to this (such as the pages on classes, etc), but I've never really been a fan of those either, to be honest. I would prefer we have less of them, not more, and if we open up the navbox to traits, we will just be adding more "crunch" pages. In addition, a lot more things in 2E have traits than had them in 1E, so I fear adding separate pages for them would open up the floodgates. TLDR: Leave traits in categories to limit having to create wiki articles for purely crunch terms. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think I can see the merit in that, since half of the creature types (especially things like monstrous humanoids and vermin) seem to have no real in-world meaning, though things like monitors, dragons and fey might still have enough information on their own right to warrant an article (then again, there's no problem with making them generic lore articles). Still, a navbox for all 2E traits (whether as it currently exists, or as a separate navbox) will come into conflict with how not all 2E traits can even have their own articles. - HTD (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, HTD, I was not suggesting we get rid of articles on types whose names are used in-world, or actually any of the articles on types or subtypes we already have. I just suggested that we didn't want to create brand new articles on types/subtypes/traits/etc.
- OK, let's limit the navbox to just the "original" types (and not the subtypes!) from 1E. In 1E we had Aberration, Artificial Intelligence, Animal, Construct, Dragon, Fey, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, Undead, and Vermin.
- In 2E, the list (according to Bestiary 3, pp. 311-312) seems to be: Aberration, Animal, Astral, Beast, Celestial, Construct, Dragon, Dream, Elemental, Ethereal, Fey, Fiend, Fungus, Giant, Humanoid, Monitor, Negative, Ooze, Petitioner, Plant, Positive, Shadow, Spirit, Time, and Undead. Note that the 2E Bestiaries name these as "types" and not "traits" (see Bestiary, p. 348), even though the stat blocks list them with the traits. Also note that in 2E, creatures can have more than one "type", e.g. ogres have both the Humanoid and Giant types.
- Does the 2E list look like it's the one we want to keep in the navbox? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I made the changes I suggested. Would you all mind taking a look at the new navbox and tell me what you think? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)