Category talk:Creatures found in the planes of existence

Intersection
I have two questions about the subdivision of this category:
 * Should we make subdivisions like Category:Creatures found in the Great Wheel Planes, etc., like it was (so far incompletely?) done for Category:Locations by plane of existence, or should we keep it simple and just include one subcategory for each plane that comes up?
 * And now with Asuras I have an example of a creature that can be found in all the Upper planes. Should we do a Category:Creatures found in the Upper Planes (which in the future might also lead to Category:Creatures found in the Outer Planes, Category:Creatures found in the Planes of Law, etc.), or is that too complicated and should we instead just add categories for all the upper planes like Category:Creatures found in Elysium, etc.? Daranios (talk) 20:31, January 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically, these categories are "terrains" because this is a subcategory of Category:Creatures by terrain which is a subcategory of Category:Creatures by environment. So for the first question, I would say no, because you would be grouping all the Great Wheel (or World Tree, or World Axis) planes together as one "environment" when it is really just a division based on the edition of D&D. That said, I can make a template that will list all creatures found in any of the Great Wheel planes. It will essentially be the OR of all the "Creatures found in &lt;plane name&gt;" categories that are in the Great Wheel.
 * For the second question, the concept of "Upper planes" also changes depending on what edition of D&D you are talking about, so you would need an "Upper Planes (Great Wheel)", "Upper Planes (World Tree)" etc. I would recommend removing Category:Creatures found in the Upper Planes and adding each of the planes where this creature can be found (in any edition). (Do the same for Maelephant in the Category:Creatures found in the Lower Planes.) Then I can make templates for each of the groupings that people might want, and we don't have to have an explosion of new categories to make it happen. Sound good? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:26, July 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds great to me! Daranios (talk) 14:54, July 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Very nice, Movie :) - Darkwynters (talk) 15:20, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

All creatures of categories only?
This category has been used in articles very inconsistently so far. As it is a summary category of terrains, should it be used only for those categories, or indeed in all respective creature articles? It could also be solved by a (huge) category intersection, but I don't know if that would make sense. Daranios (talk) 07:48, May 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this category needs to be removed from all creatures and only used as a summary, but I can see an argument for giving it to all creatures not found on the Prime Material plane. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:37, May 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * I would argue for removing this category and using instead "Creatures by plane". ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:23, May 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * I like Lhynard's solution: That would make it clear that the category does not need to go into that large number of creature articles. Daranios (talk) 09:35, June 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * Creaturs by plane covers most of the subcategories, but not Category:Creatures found on the River Oceanus, Category:Creatures found on the River Styx, and Category:Creatures found on the World Tree (which should exist, and maybe Yggdrasil and Mount Olympus too). We'd need a new parent for these, if we want to rename this category to Creatures by plane. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:42, June 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * For rivers and other such "planar paths", as I think they are officially called, I think that we should treat them as rivers and give them parents for all of the planes that they pass through. ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:15, June 1, 2019 (UTC)