Category talk:Tournament decks: Difference between revisions
im>VestDan No edit summary |
im>VestDan No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I don't know about trying to have multiple sections on 'current' and 'older' tourney decks. We would have to update the lists for EVERY major tournament. The Wiki should not be where people go for 'tech,' but for information in general -- if they want to know what decks are doing well, there is mtg.com and elsewhere. The deck articles here should provide information on the origins, evolution, and success of decks, but if we tried to keep it 'up to date,' it would just become a bad strategy site. Not to mention, the potential for posters to keep trying to post their 'competative' decks, which could cause all sorts of trouble. [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 20:16, 6 April 2006 (CDT) | I don't know about trying to have multiple sections on 'current' and 'older' tourney decks. We would have to update the lists for EVERY major tournament. The Wiki should not be where people go for 'tech,' but for information in general -- if they want to know what decks are doing well, there is mtg.com and elsewhere. The deck articles here should provide information on the origins, evolution, and success of decks, but if we tried to keep it 'up to date,' it would just become a bad strategy site. Not to mention, the potential for posters to keep trying to post their 'competative' decks, which could cause all sorts of trouble. [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 20:16, 6 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
The Wizards community boards has a pretty extensive deck encyclopedia: | |||
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=456567 (dunno how to do links off the top of my head). It includes even older decks, like Balance. Could be a good place to start. [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 11:35, 9 April 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:35, 9 April 2006
Split
I believe that we need to split decks bewteen current competive decks and past decks. As is we have older decks missed in and it makes it a bad source of information unless we specify.User:SorryGuy
- Agreed, what we have now will be current, and we will add on an "Old Decks" sections. I didn't even think of this issue, glad you noticed.Voice of AllTalk 16:50, 15 December 2005 (CST)
Is Madness viable currently? Has it not been completely metagamed out? QmunkE 02:59, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
What in the world is Hypnotic Control? I'm trying to help flesh out some of the standard decks but I've never heard of that one. Is it suppose to be BW Control? --Shadowin 17:50, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
While attempting to make this stuff better, I noticed that including the category Tournament Decks tag on the individual deck page caused it to show up below the edited stuff. Obviously this causes some funny looking stuff. What would be the best way to make this stuff look right? Not include the category or change the category page? --Shadowin 19:02, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
I don't know about trying to have multiple sections on 'current' and 'older' tourney decks. We would have to update the lists for EVERY major tournament. The Wiki should not be where people go for 'tech,' but for information in general -- if they want to know what decks are doing well, there is mtg.com and elsewhere. The deck articles here should provide information on the origins, evolution, and success of decks, but if we tried to keep it 'up to date,' it would just become a bad strategy site. Not to mention, the potential for posters to keep trying to post their 'competative' decks, which could cause all sorts of trouble. VestDan 20:16, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
The Wizards community boards has a pretty extensive deck encyclopedia: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=456567 (dunno how to do links off the top of my head). It includes even older decks, like Balance. Could be a good place to start. VestDan 11:35, 9 April 2006 (CDT)