Template talk:Sets

Replace Sinker with Dragon's Den would you? Kraken Chowder 101 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Done. Thanks. --Magic Mage (talk!) 00:58, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Code names

Lock/Stock/Barrel (source) seems to be missing from this template. Can someone with the proper rights please add them? AlmaV (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Thx for all your edits! --Hunter61 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

New block

Could someone replace "Huey" with Khans of Tarkir? Thanks in advance. --Spike 00:33, 19 May 2014 (CET)

Done --Hunter61 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

New Template Suggestion

Discussing how and if to best update set nav.

• Island (C18 #296)
• Island (C18 #297)
• Island (C18 #298)

• {{WebRef | title=List of psychotropic substances under international control | date=2005-04-30 | url=http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate=2005-07-06 | language=Greek }}
  → List of psychotropic substances under international control (Greek) (PDF) (2005-04-30). Retrieved on 2005-07-06.

• List of psychotropic substances under international control (Greek, PDF, 2005-04-30). Retrieved on 2005-07-06.

• MM3

.highlight img, .highlight a img img.highlight{

  background: rgba(0,0,0,0);
  -webkit-filter: drop-shadow(0px 0px 10px #666666);
  filter: drop-shadow(0px 0px 3.5px #666666) drop-shadow(1px 1px 1px #666666);

}

, , and

Sig check: Yandere-sliver (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. So, looking at this template, I have a few problems with it, and was wondering if a new template would help to address this. My issues are as follows:

1) The standalone sets are going to get bigger. As we move forward, with the Three-And-One block model, it's going to just keep inflating at the top and not the bottom.

2) Putting the standalone sets before the blocks implies that the standalone sets came first, followed by the blocks. While that was the case before (except for Homelands coming after Ice Age), it is no longer the case now.

3) Core sets are listed separately, leaving no way for the reader to tell when they were released relative to the expansions.

4) Portal/Starter are listed. These sets were never Standard-legal. They were products meant to introduce new players to the game. In that regard, they were a different type of product trying to attract a different type of audience. Were this done today, it would likely be a supplemental product, and listed on that template instead.

5) Chronicles isn't listed. On the flip side of the coin, Chronicles was Standard-legal at the time of its release. Yeah, it was all reprints, but it was still a Standard expansion. I mean, for all we know, maybe Ixalan is all reprints too, and has no new cards. Unlikely, sure, but it's possible. If that were to happen, would we strike it from this template? My gut says no.

Why can't we do something like this?

Not perfect, perhaps, as it is a bit harder to read, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now. I think it does need some fine-tuning, but this is a good starting point to work from, and it addresses all of my complaints with the current template. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea. I upgraded the thing a bit.to have more structure and also to include the special sets. I would like to hear some feedback.-Yandere Sliver 15:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so, here's what's wrong with yours:

1) You list Revised as an expansion, rather than a core set. (I'm assuming that this was accidental.)

2) The Portal/Starter sets are still listed, implying that they were Standard-legal when they weren't. Heck, until 2005, they weren't even legal in Legacy or Vintage. They REALLY ought to be in the special sets section. I have yet to hear an argument to the contrary.

3) Chronicles is still listed as a special set, in addition to a Standard set. Pick one or the other. Personally, I recommend Standard, since it was Standard-legal at the time. Yeah, Renaissance will be lonely, but you can always add Salvat 2005 and Salvat 2011 and name that section "foreign language products".

4) Core sets are separated from the expansions on your template, making it hard to tell which order these all came out in. Was Magic 2013 legal with Theros? The answer is no. My version makes that clear. Yours does not. I could live with this, though. If we have to list core sets separately, this is the way to go. It is much easier to read, so I am willing to concede this point.

While I'm willing to concede point #4 (although I'd still rather do it my way), point #1 to point #3 are pretty big issues, imo. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Since I made that last comment, you fixed the first two issues and added in the Welcome Decks. Good call. I like this. I went ahead and edited mine to include Welcome Decks too, so you can see how that looks as well. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, #1 is just a stupid mistake. #2 I updated the nav. However I am a bit confused why the Starter cards were not standard legal, I mean what is the point of introduction products that you can't use to play the default format with. Do we have any sources on that that state one or the other? I mean I am not opposed to having them under special sets. They were clearly a special thing during the classic era. So either way it is fine.

#3 Chronicles did not change standard. It was a straight up reprint set, which did not increase the card pool. It contained 100% standard legal cards but that does not make it a typical standard expansion. However I added the Salvat sets they were not listed in the Nav but probably should be there with Chronicles and Renaissance.

#4 I would still keep the split since it is the 3+1 Model. The core set does not stand on equal ground with a normal Magic expansion.

Standard availability is such a thing due to the rotation you need to keep up anyway. Because you cant just say it is always the last 2 Core sets + 6 Expansions. Well, they could change that, but currently 3+1 are rotating at the same time so you need to keep track of which expansions belong to which core set anyway. So it is always hard to tell what is or isn't standard legal...

We could to however a Standard sets and Future sets subsection, but I think that makes the nav to cluncky again. But I think the easiest way to check standard legality is to look at the Standard article. - Yandere Sliver 18:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason for Portal/Starter not being Standard-legal is that the thinking was, at the time, that Standard was too complex for beginners, and so they were intended as a side thing that players could start with before "transitioning" into Standard sets. The idea was that new players would feel more welcome around other new players, and not overwhelmed against experienced players, so they keep the two separate. What actually ended up happening, however, was that new players felt less welcome, because they were treated as outsiders, not allowed to play "real" Magic. They were never legal in Standard/Extended, and were not even legal in Legacy/Vintage for a long time, since they were not "real" Magic. R&D has since said that not making the new player product legal in Standard was a mistake, which is why the Welcome Decks and Planeswalker Decks have their new cards being Standard-legal. You can see them becoming Legacy/Vintage legal here: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/more-about-march-1st-2005-03-11 And for proof that they were never in Standard, see here: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/96058706578/youve-mentioned-that-yall-have-a-new-beginner Hopefully that clears that one up. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(reset - maybe tag those templates at the top of this heading?) Sandslash, thanks for bringing this up. I agree that the layout is already noisy and increasingly a problem. I see that your mockups each mix this template along with {{Special sets}}, along with a few variations on sorting for the sets themselves. How do we want to divide sets? Simple chronology? By product type? By format legality? One of you seems focused on format, while the other is interested in much more granular divisions. Any of those can work, but I am concerned with the current choice you've each made to highlight Frontier as a category. I question whether a low-headcount, unsupported format is sufficiently notable to warrant that treatment.

In any case, I'd like to mull over some ideas myself. I'll check back in a few hours when I'm home from work. --Corveroth (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I was dividing by card frame, not format. I just didn't know what to call the current card frame other than "Frontier". (You'll note that "Classic" is not a format.) Originally, I had no divisions, and just listed them off. However, that was an eyesore and I knew it needed some divisions. I couldn't figure out how to divide it other than card frame. That seemed simple. I am willing to find some other division, but don't really know what to do otherwise. Any ideas? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by the way, one more thing. In regards to Chronicles and Standard legality, because it was all reprints: Know that it remained in Standard longer than the sets that it reprinted stuff from. Early Standard had weird rotations before they introduced blocks. Standard, when it was first made (under the name Type 2) used the following sets: Revised-The Dark-Fallen Empires. When Fourth Edition came out, it was The Dark-Fallen Empires-Fourth Edition. Then, when more sets came out, it expanded until it was Chronicles-Fallen Empires-Fourth Edition-Ice Age-Homelands-Alliances-Mirage. When Visions came out, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, and Homelands dropped. Then Fifth Edition came out and dropped Chronicles and Fourth Edition, while simultaneously adding back Ice Age and Homelands (primarily because some cards in the Standard-legal Alliances set needed the Snow-Covered Lands from the Standard-illegal Ice Age set in order to function, and then they figured that since Homelands is newer than Ice Age, they may as well throw that back in too). Then Weatherlight came out and nothing dropped, and from then on, drops only occurred at the start of a block. Just some Magic history for you. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@ GoldenSandslash - Yes early magic was messy. I would still keep Chronicles under special sets. Since I know nobody who treats this as a proper expansion. It is definitely an odd one out. Actually what you described is a great part for the Trivia section of Chronicles.

I find the Classic, Modern, Frontier divide kind of natural. So I simply kept the structure when I made my suggestion. I also think chronological within the category is a good sorting order.

I also added in the Special sets and I really think: Navbox with collapsible groups is the way to go. Due to the massive amount of information in that nav box. - Yandere Sliver 20:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, I pose the question: If, hypothetically, WotC found a way to make a cohesive Standard set with just reprints, would you exclude it from the template? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not, because the early core set were all 100% reprints. However Chronicles is a special case - the odd one out - and I don't think the end all be all purpose of this nav should be to reflect standard legality. - Yandere Sliver 05:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) If the purpose isn't to reflect Standard legality, then why don't we have all of the Magic products listed? Commander decks, Planechase, Vanguard, Archenemy, Conspiracy, Masters sets, Un-sets, and so on. These aren't listed on the regular sets page. They are listed on the special sets page. But, what makes them any different than "regular" expansions, if not Standard legality? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Expansions and Core Sets are regular sets. All regular sets were standard-legal at some point, but not all standard-legal sets is a regular set. Correlation is high no doubt, but these things are not identical. The Welcome Decks and Chronicles are the two examples here...

That being said I updated my suggestion for the nav again to incorporate Chronicles into the Classic area. It is listed after 4th edition because, those two sets were closely tied. - Yandere Sliver 09:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm willing to go with Yandere Sliver's version right now, provided that he fixes the one mistake in it (Revised should be after Unlimited, not before it). --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. - Yandere Sliver 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts. Are the "Other digital sets" actually sets, per se, or just a part of their respective games? Do the new Welcome Decks belong where they are now, or with the Starter sets? And finally, I remain unconvinced that "Frontier" should be a label we implicitly endorse. --Corveroth (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The "other digital sets" thing is weird. The cards aren't on Gatherer, so they don't officially exist. But they are still official releases, leaving them in this weird state of semi-existence. I could take it or leave it. The Welcome Decks vs the Starter Decks: I could go either way on this one. At the time, my thinking was legality in Standard, the prime difference between the two. But since that is no longer a factor, idk. You could move them if you wanted. As for the "Frontier" thing, it's a bad label. I admit it. But I challenge you to come up with a better one. I tried, and failed, which is why I went with "Frontier" in the first place. It may not be ideal, but it's the best we have. Unless you have another suggestion? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the nav as currently proposed keeps all standard legal sets in the first 3 tabs, so I would leave the Welcome Decks were they are there similar to Chronicles due to this reason.

I am not opposed to put the "Other digital sets" somewhere else. Don't we have a nav for magic computer games were we could add this? That would probably be a better spot to keep them.

Classic, Modern and M15 are the border descriptions I usually hear. However with the rise of the Frontier format, I can slowly see this shifting to Classic, Modern and Frontier. - Yandere Sliver 18:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(reset) I think the "other digitals" can simply be rolled into the pages for their respective games. As for Frontier, I'm not sure "rise" is the right word to describe its popularity. More than that, you seem to be wavering between grouping cards based on format (your argument re:Welcome Decks) or by border (M15 forward). Which of these options is actually the goal? If it's by border, I don't think there's a good term for M15's minor revision. If it's by format, I think we should use "Eternal" and "Modern". --Corveroth (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, border and format more or less go together to a certain degree, so I might be a bit inconsistent in using these terms. And Sandslash is a strong advocate to keep the Standard legal sets together so that is what we are doing in the first 3 tabs and that is one of the main concerns. My main reason for the separation - and I find the border separation a quite natural one - is to have smaller lists which are easier to comprehend. I updated the nav to focus more on the borders and removed the digital cards. - Yandere Sliver 20:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that correlation has sufficient exceptions (every recent supplemental set, plus Timeshifted cards) that I would be wary of relying on it. I would be happy to see Standard separated. However, I disagree on the significance of the M15 border change, but recognize that I am only one vote. Ultimately, if that's where the majority lies, go for it! --Corveroth (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)