The rakshasa-spawn entry is probably doing some harm in this case, as it is a tiefling heritage spawned from the rakshasa race, not an actual type of rakshasa. The rajadhiraja entry is likely not harmful, but still redundant, as it isn't a rakshasa type either but a subgroup of maharajas. In any case, the equivalents of rajadhirajas among other outsider races (balor lords, olethrodaemon paragons, asurendra blasphemous sages, eremite overlords, akvan princes, voidlords, olethros mothers, Heralds of the Speakers, empyrean paragons, veranallia elders) do not have their own articles and are not listed in the navboxes of their corresponding race. - HTD (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Feels like we're about to have the same running argument again about overaggressively and unilaterally deleting content added by others from wiki tools designed for inclusive content discovery, the irrelevance of mechanics on a canon content wiki, and how precedent alone is not policy to be applied universally or as justification for rapidly deleting anything.
- The entries aren't harmful. Please don't delete content from tools designed to faciltate discovery without discussion. If rajadhirajas are not distict enough to justify an article, add a request to merge on its page instead of deleting it from a relevant navbox. -Oznogon (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how mechanics have anything to do with this discussion at all. As of now, the template implies that rakshasa-spawn tieflings are also considered to be rakshasas when they clearly are not (by both the fluff and mechanics). I've made rajadhiraja redirect to rakshasa maharaja for now. - HTD (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- If the presence of a half-breed subrace in this navbox so strongly implies that it is a full-breed version of that race, despite the distinction being mostly self-explained by its name, then why unilaterally remove it from this navbox without discussion? Why not try to maintain the intent of the navbox by suggesting a different name or organization, or a clarification? Why not ask why it's in the navbox in the first place before deleting it? Why bring up the term "a tiefling heritage", which only has a mechanical meaning in this context, if you aren't talking about mechanics? And how does the spawn of rakshasas not logically belong in a navigational aid for articles about rakshasas? -Oznogon (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- [edited at same time as two above] So, I just solved the problem of tieflings, without any deletion, in 3 words, and that aligns this navbox with many others. Personally, I think it valuable to get a link to a rakshasa tiefling from rakshasa pages - I can see that being useful. Re the rajadhirajas, when I edited the Rakshasa maharaja page, I thought they deserved their own page - there is quite a bit of material beyond the single sentence currently in the article. I'd prefer to lose the redirects you just added as they suggest we have incorporated all the information when we have not, so red links would be more appropriate until that is done. It also places a circular link on the page. --Fleanetha (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
[reset indentation] I have bolstered your additional text, HTD, to incorporate a few more important bits, updated the categories, and added an infobox for the variant to the page. With those changes, I am more comfortable with keeping them on the same page now. Your added redirects and the rakshasa navbox are now consistent, the latter with some tweaking. Oznogon has removed the circular redirect and acknowledged your new redirects on the page for future editors. Our work on the Template:Rakshasa navbox (retitling, adding a sub-section, and tweaking links) is sound and useful. All told, that is a fair bit of teamwork to achieve a valuable improvement on the wiki, and a much better way of working than the blunt deletion that started this. In your break, please consider how this strengthens our case for more collaborative working and consideration of the consequences of change, plus planning the remedial work needed to accommodate the change. Please realise the alternative causes considerable extra work for busy administrators, which takes the shine of your valuable input. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)