Category talk:Tournament decks: Difference between revisions
>LegacymtgsalvationUser1033 (Introductory statement) |
im>Faceless Wanderer 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) | ||
If there has to be a "split" It only requires extra lists where the decks can be found. Perhaps a list can be made for every time a new expansion is released, because splits in time will occur at releases. | |||
[[User:Faceless Wanderer|Faceless Wanderer]] 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
The Wizards community boards has a pretty extensive deck encyclopedia: | The Wizards community boards has a pretty extensive deck encyclopedia: | ||
Revision as of 09:33, 1 June 2007
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)
If there has to be a "split" It only requires extra lists where the decks can be found. Perhaps a list can be made for every time a new expansion is released, because splits in time will occur at releases. Faceless Wanderer 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Deck template
Should we look into the possibility of a deck template? While I agree I don't necessarily think we need to be seen as a clearinghouse for the most up-to-date lists, I think many of the archetype articles should at least have one decklist for illustrative purposes. Formatting could get pretty hairy unless we have a template similar to what's on the forums. --Binary 10:40, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
- I just started the Template:D, though I am not sure how to lay it out best.Voice of AllTalk 12:45, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
- Can we do it in two columns? --Binary 08:06, 11 April 2006 (CDT)
Capitalization
The word "deck" isn't capitalized in the articles for other formats, but it is for Standard. Any opinions on which should be the standard? I'm leaning towards not capitalized. --Binary 08:03, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
Introductory statement
This page is linked from the main page. It needs some sort of introductory statement instead of just being a list broken down by categories. --GeoMike 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)