Category talk:Nephilim Tag

Discussion

Its the proper tag...like every race. Every race is a tag for the creature type humanoid. If ever a magic item were to effect nephilim then that item would effect creatures with this tag. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2018 (MDT)
And it’s currently only unused because you removed the from the creature using because it was an unused in use category BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

Yes, I removed it, because there's no practical purpose to a category which only has one member.

Are you telling me even though there are over 500 different homebrew races on this wiki, for 5e alone, they all deserve to have their own category, even though in over 95% of those cases it would be the only page in that category? What would the purpose of that be? Why do you think categories exist? - Guy (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

there’s currently 3 races this could be applied to and yes, all deserve their appropriate tags. Every race and monster has their individual tag(s). It just follows precedent, and conforms with 5e rules and design. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

If there's 3 races that should be in that category, then great, please put them in there. I only marked it for deletion because there was only one member of this category at the time.

...I'm quite unsure what you mean by "rules" and "precedent," though. The vast majority 5e races on this wiki don't have their own tag category, as there is no practical purpose for such. Both on this wiki and in the Monster Manual, tags only exist for the purpose of creatures, and it's mainly to identify the creature's race if it has one. - Guy (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

Hey sorry about the word rules. My thoughts were rulebook, with monster manual being the rulebook in mind. I typed it out as if I were in a casual conversation with my friends. Hope you can forgive me for that.The precedent I was referring to, again, core rules (the monster manual). I’m aware homebrew races haven’t been doing it, and I don’t think everyone is receptive to it because it’s different than what’s been. It’s not a wrong thing for me to want to do, but it isn’t the right thing based on what has been done either. So I’ve been trying to create discussions for it, make an edit as a feeler for a discussion to start. Hell, I’d go through and tag every creature if I knew I wouldn’t start an edit war lol but I think getting consensus through discussion and presenting a neutral point of view based on 5e precedent would be best. Maybe you could answer this for me then, are you only opposed to this tag because the number of articles it’s linked to? Or further, do you think the tags (in general) to just be pointless and wasted space? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

So sorry to double post, I forgot mention that races are creatures per the monster manual. In the back of the monster manual, the NPCs type is humanoid (any). And this wiki also had tags for the SRD races. They are very much a part of races in 5e, whether that be wiki, homebrew, or the core rulebooks. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2018 (MDT)

To answer your question upfront, yes, it's needless page bloat (and on mediawiki software the addition of almost every page slows down the site just a little bit more), and making 500+ one-member categories is wasted effort. Pruning empty or one-member categories is routine maintenance on almost any wiki. (In general D&D Wiki is relatively lax on routine maintenance things, but still.)

I understand the connection between races and creatures. Considering how many 5e creatures and races I've made for this wiki alone, I would wager I understand it at least as well as you do.

What I think is that you don't understand the purpose of categories on a wiki such as this, nor the real purpose of tags in the Monster Manual.

Like I said, tag categories only exist for creature articles, and mainly to easily specify the creature's race, then group those articles into a nice tidy package. Its pretty convenient if you're a DM and you, for example, want to make adventures full of bullywugs or goblins. The only reason race pages are in the same tag category is that it provides a tidy description of that tag.

As I've reiterated, there is generally no purpose--no functional gain--to keeping a category with one page in it, and that's doubly so for a race page in a category that is intended primarily for creature pages. Neither aesthetically nor practically is there any gain to doing so. Trying as I am, I legitimately do not understand your point of view.

That said, remove the delete template if you want. I can't even believe we're having a debate over routine category maintenance on a wiki. To be blunt, this not how I want to spend my free time. - Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (MDT)

I agree that single page categories are rather pointless. From the MediaWiki perspective they should not exist. From the D&D perspective they are an exception.

How about we make a category like Category:Other Tag where we list the race's there using titles. Then this would be like Weapon Alternatives (5e Other). --Green Dragon (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (MDT)

I appreciate the time you've taken then, it was never my intent to debate MediaWiki routine maintenance, or debate in general. I understand the concern for single page categories, I was under the impression page/article space wasn't an issue.

My desire to pursue this started way back in March. Something didn't seem right and it wasn't until I noticed more and more races getting Multiple Creature Types, especially as Featured Articles nominees, that I really hunkered down into the topic and thinking of how to make it right and coincide with Dungeons & Dragons, not just 5e or this wiki. I can concede that a category with a single page is meaningless, and per my example, I designed it so that it could apply to the Nephilim (5e Race), Nephilim, Variant (5e Race), and Nephilim of Raziel (5e Race). I still believe, per other discussions that extra creature types should be replaced by tags, and traits that bestow those types be edited to have flavor, fluff, and creativity much like the examples I provided do.

I had also thought the purpose of these tags would help people find creatures (including races) of the same kind for whatever their hearts content is. I think I like the idea of Category:Other Tag and listing uncommon, rare, single case tags in there. It would at least be something to represent things in a correct manner. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2018 (MDT)

Green Dragon, would the races auto populate under Category:Other Tag? Because thinking about it, entries for the Weapon Alternatives (5e Other) are manually entered. So any new races would require manual entry, and a high amount of vigilance making sure the page doesn't become forgotten and entries are left out or become obsolete? Unless there were a way to get them to populate on the page based on the article namespace? Thanks for bearing with me on this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2018 (MDT)

Yes, all the races would have to be edited with the Category:Other Tag. This should not be to difficult, since you can use a dpl to filter out all the standard tags and everything that the dpl spits out just needs the category added. I presume that one can also find similar races in this category, just through the alphabetical list. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2018 (MDT)

I know I'm late to the discussion, but I'm not sure what the function of the "Other Tag" would be. Would it not just be a list of every homebrew 5e race? Marasmusine (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2020 (MST)

It would except for things that already have tags such as elves, celestials, fiends, etc. It is a compromise so that not every race would have its own tag, which is what I think is the correct thing to do. Red Leg Leo (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2020 (MST)

I’m kinda late, but I’ll just throw in what I have to say: We can have a creature type called “Other,” as many people have said, and in parentheses would be the exact type, say you want to make a reptilian race of creatures with 4 arms, not quite a monstrosity, so you could have it be Other (Reptilian). For more specialized races, it could be Other (Special).   ━Kanon ⊕  Talk   13:07, 4 July 2020 (MDT)

Wait, isn’t monstrosity supposed to be the other tag, things that don’t fit other monster/race types? Besides, wouldn’t it just be humanoid and celestial/fiend, instead of an entirely new category? I hate to talk after I already have, but I only thought of this now...   ━Kanon ⊕  Talk   15:50, 6 July 2020 (MDT)

Consensus seems to just not want to do anything about it. This category tag has survived longer than I expected though.
I think your interpretation is one version for monstrosity. Red Leg Leo (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2020 (MDT)
Also, regarding your comments on Green Dragon's talk page; there isn't per se a need for the category but two years ago when I started this I thought it the right thing to do, and I still believe that. You mention a Nephilim would have celestial/fiend tag but that doesn't coincide with precedent. I understand the logic though. Red Leg Leo (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2020 (MDT)