MTG Wiki talk:WikiProject Layout

Feedback

My main piece of feedback is that I'm strongly against "Trivia" sections; I basically agree with the reasoning in Wikipedia:MOS:TRIVIA. The trivia section for Planeswalker, for example, became so overgrown that it was spun off into its own subpage. To be clear I don't think we should delete Trivia sections overnight (a lot of them contain important information that can be incorporated into other headings), but I would prefer that they not be normalized in this policy.

Besides that, I think it might be useful to spell out a larger meta-approach or philosophy for organizing headings. For example:

1. What it's called (Etymology or terminology)
2. What it is (e.g. description, definition, rules text, appearance and characteristics, biography)
3. What it used to be (History)
4. Other information
5. Non-prose content (Lists, gallery)

Not all of these "buckets" will need to be used in every case. (We almost never use Etymology sections, for example.) I think spelling this out could help give people some guidance where to insert non-standard headings, stuff that isn't explicitly covered by this policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inktog (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

Lead

Lead section (also called the introduction) We've discussed a guideline of maximum about 300 words and to avoid copying text from the main body --Hunter (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

300 words sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb to me. Wikipedia guidelines say that featured articles tend to get about 250 to 400 words, but those are longer and more complex than the average MTG Wiki article. They also suggest 100 words as a minimum, but ours might be more like (at a guess) 50-75. (And of course, articles that are only a few paragraphs long don't need a lead.) If by "copying text" you mean a literal word-for-word copy-paste, then I'm fine discouraging that. But I do think paraphrasing should be allowed—summarizing the article's key points is the whole point of the lead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inktog (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

I wanted to comment on the example used of Kristina's Woods having a section called "Description" when that's the entire content of the article, calling into question the need for that section header. To me it's very useful to know right away if what I'm reading is the description or the history of a given character, artifact, location or affiliation. Kristina's Woods does have some history, so I know going to that article that since it's short, I might add a bit on the history of the location, since the description is already there. Other times, I want to read something about someone/somewhere/something and I'd prefer not to be very spoiled if it's about something in a book I'm reading. Just reading the description (and not the history) is sometimes a very nice way to do that. So personally I'd be in favor of keeping the section headers even if they head the only section of the article.--Varghedin (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Character

Etymology I feel this shouldn't be as high up. Could be part of the trivia? --Hunter (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC) I don't have a strong opinion on this, but Wikipedia keeps Etymology at the top. RudleyDudley (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen an Etymology section on this wiki. There is Typal#Terminology, which I think makes sense as one of the first headings.

*Biography Currently "History" --Hunter (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Don't have a strong opinion here either, but I do feel Biography makes more sense for character subjects than History, and wouldn't be against moving toward making that change as we update articles. RudleyDudley (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC) I like a change to Biography for the in-universe history. It then allows us to separate out the production history as a separate heading. --RivalRowan (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Seconded, I like Biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inktog (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

(above unsigned comment isn't mine) I've been using "History" for these pages, because then it's consistent across locations, artifacts, characters, affiliations and events, and generally I'm strongly for consistency. However, I'm also not in disfavor of using "Biography" for characters, it just has to be consistent for all characters in that case.--Varghedin (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'm strongly against standard-collapsing the story appearances table as it makes searching on-page for content inside the tables impossible. I'm currently filling in info in those tables and the collapsed tables for Urza, Karn and Teferi make me gnash my teeth. But I know others disagree.--Varghedin (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Mechanic

History This should be placed after description (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC) I agree. --RivalRowan (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be placed after Rules. "What it is" should be explained fully before an article moves on to the history, in my opinion.

Flavor I feel this should be incorporated in the description (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Design I feel this should be incorporated in the description (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC) I disagree. The Description should be about what the mechanic is now. It's design is partly this and partly it's history/pre-history. It should go inbetween or afterwards. --RivalRowan (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with RivalRowan. For Flavor, if it's only a sentence, then I ithkn it can be incorporated into Description or Design. But if there's enough information for its own section, I don't think it should be a subheading of anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inktog (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

Sets

Storyline/Flavor and storyline It was recently questioned on the discord if this should be a subsection of set details (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Storyline should be its own heading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inktog (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

(above unsigned comment isn't mine) - I'd also like for storyline to be its own heading. I fail to see how storyline and marketing belong together. I'm also strongly against standard-collapsing the storyline tables as it makes searching on-page for content inside the tables impossible.--Varghedin (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Notes and references

In-game references This is always a separate section --Hunter (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC) I'm not fond of moving this here because it will make it harder to read the actual footnotes/citations/etc. Perhaps the section needs a change of title? --RivalRowan (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, despite its name, In-game references is part of the article body, not part of the notes and references.

--Inktog (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I've sometimes been confused by this. Could we consider alternate wording, like "in-game representation" or some such to make a clearer discintion?--Varghedin (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Images

As has been noted, I'm generally a big fan of images. A picture says a thousand words and takes up a lot less space on a page! (at least a thumbnail does). I often think the galleries are way too far down, and often sorely lacking. Like, I can go to the page on Greven il-Vec looking for that epic image of him by Kev Walker and wow ok it isn't his profile pic, ok fine, it must be somewhere in a buried gallery I guess and then I go scrolling looking for it and it isn't even therrrre! And neither is any other image of him besides his profile picture. What? In my world I would put the galleries maybe on top of almost everything just to say, hey, this is what you're looking at now, look at all these beautiful art pieces of that person/location/artifact you want to know more about. In any case, consistency is golden.--Varghedin (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I see the discussion on number of images on the main page. I don't agree with an 8 image max per artist as I think that's too strict. Who gets to decide what those 8 are? I also see not adding every artwork for every artist, though. I also agree with Hunter here that if an image already exists somewhere, and the artist already has a page, there should be no problem to add that image to that artist.--Varghedin (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that "admin" adds no weight to my words. For our purposes here, I am an experienced editor.

I emphatically disagree with your image-forward stance. "A picture is worth 10K words - but only those to describe the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described with pictures." No collection of artwork depicts Jace's desperation in seeking out his mother's care after New Phyrexia loosed its hold on him. There is no image of most of Yawgmoth's deeds against the Thran. No character or event from And Peace Shall Sleep has a card, leaving only its cover art of two humanoids gawking at an egg to tell its story, and hundreds of other characters from dozens of other sources exist only as words. Text is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia, and images support the text. We have entire artist galleries next door on Scryfall: how does it serve the reader to go through all of the grunt labor to copy those over individually, rather than simply linking that search? An encyclopedia article is not a gallery of images, nor is it an indiscriminate collection. It is a narrative that identifies, explains, and contextualizes its subject.

Which images should we use here? The best, the most iconic, the most unique, the most distinctive, as chosen by the consensus of editors. What images can answer questions about the artist? What was their art like when they started? What did they make most recently? What art of theirs diverges most from their usual style? What massively common card did they illustrate, so that a reader can latch onto it and say "ah, this is the person who painted my favorite elf/commander/etc"?

Eight is an arbitrary number, and some articles may demand more. Leonardo da Vinci is one of the most famous artists in history, and his article has "only" fifty or so. Were I forced to, I would perhaps reduce that to the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and the Vitruvian Man, and still feel confident that I had selected his most iconic and culturally impactful works. Leo was so prolific and varied in his interests that he warrants quite a bit more, to showcase both the types of work he produced and the phases of his life in which he produced them. Many Magic artists have produced much less, and if they are notable enough for their own article in the first place, perhaps they only need one or two exemplifying images. But maybe Kev Walker has done so much that he warrants treatment more like Leo. A handful of images from when he started in Mirage, some from more recent years. Scatter in other highlights: the pairing of Wrath of God and Damnation. The unusual heavy sci-fi art of Void. Use Volrath the Fallen or Commander Greven il-Vec to talk about his work illustrating key story characters. But above all, talk. Explain to the reader why these artworks matter. If they just want pictures, Scryfall is already there, already tagged, and fundamentally better for the purpose than a wiki could ever be. --Corveroth (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hard +1 to everything corv said. We shouldn't be including images just for the sake of including them, and I definitely don't think we should put a gallery at the top of each page. --Inktog (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not going to push on this thing with the gallery at the top. I don't expect anyone else to want that. And of course I'm not saying we shouldn't have words on the wiki. I'm basically just venting because as an image lover, I find it frustrating at times that images are so often relegated to a gallery that is found quite far down on a page, leaving me to feel like it's a wall of text with some images appended almost as an afterthought. And now we're saying we should only have 8 images in that gallery, and we should only show the most iconic images. This makes me sad, as it detracts from the wide bounty of art that is a fundamental part of Magic.--Varghedin (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess I also fall somewhere in the middle here. I don't know that we need to include a glut of images that serve no purpose, but many articles are lacking body images. This recent edit in particular stood out to me (don't mean to call anyone out, it just seemed emblematic of the discussion). How does it help an article to move all images accompanying the text into a Gallery where they're all grouped together? I think the correct outcome here has to fall somewhere between "limited number of images all grouped in a gallery at the bottom of the page" and "dozens of images all grouped in a gallery at the top of the page." RudleyDudley (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (Resetting indent) There are absolutely places where either or both are appropriate. Broadly: if you have room to place an image alongside the text, prefer that, but galleries do have a role: "Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Emphasis mine. The WP image use policy is very well refined and I think that it's broadly applicable here, with the caveat that where WP suggests moving galleries to Commons, we already have those galleries on Scryfall. Corveroth (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rudley. Yes, I've experienced multiple times that after having spent some time placing an image in the body of the text, the image is immediately shunted down into a gallery. It got to the point where I've given up and just add any image to a gallery even if there is no image in the main body.--Varghedin (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Mechanic proposal

I made a major edit to the article for trample to demonstrate a possible flow for merging several of the sections listed here. Aside from a redesign within the scope of this project, I also removed a bulky list of links to cards that amounted to "here's every permutation on 'spell trample' I can think of". --Corveroth (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I like it! I was skeptical about the merging of headings into what you decided to call "Development", but it works. I did move the "Untrample" heading to the bottom of the article, since it's much less important to the topic of trample than the rules or example card. --Inktog (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Check in on the Talk page. I don't think Untrample is encyclopedic, and it should be removed. Corveroth (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Set proposal

I reorganized the sections for March of the Machine, and I'm curious what other people think of it as as a model for other set articles. Most I wanted to get rid of the "Set details" umbrella, since it seems pretty arbitrary to me—everything on a set page is a "set detail". The proposed layout:

• Product suite
• Themes and mechanics
• Notable cards
• Storyline
• Marketing
• Cycles
• Tokens and emblems
• Reprinted cards
• Gallery

Very open to feedback; I'm especially not certain that this is the right order. --Inktog (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up: I also reorganized Arabian Nights, for an example of how this might look for an older set. The main difference is that "Product suite" became "Product details", since there's also one product. --Inktog (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

New set guidelines

Thanks for updating the project page! I just did Marvel's Spider-Man according to the new guidelines for sets. Here's some notes + feedback:

• I kept Marketing as its own section (albeit much diminished, with most of the info going to Product Suite). Promo cards aren't really part of the product suite, they're promotional, so it felt appropriate to group them with other marketing stuff. The current guidelines don't mention an Events section, so I kept it under Marketing as well. I also kept Headliner under Marketing rather than Product Suite, but I could go either way on that.
• The Product Suite section mostly contains a bunch of subsections that aren't mentioned in the guidelines, and the subsections mentioned in the guidelines mostly weren't relevant to this particular article.
• I didn't put Storyline first, because I just don't think the storyline is more important to a set than "what products are being sold" and "what are the mechanics". People are free to disagree on this, of course.
• I added the a few other sections which didn't appear in the guidelines, since the information didn't fit into any existing sections: Design and Development, and Formatting and Template Changes
• For older sets where there's just one product and not an entire product line (e.g. Arabian Nights), I've been calling the section "Product details" instead of "Product suite".

--Inktog (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good to have something to fall back on. SPM seems fine. The only jarring thing is that I would move the rules and formatting/template changes up to Design and development --Hunter (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thinking about it I'd maybe even move them farther up, right under Themes and mechanics, but they're under Design and development now. --Inktog (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Completely correct on the callout for removing Marketing/Events - I definitely got distracted partway through going through your set examples and forgot to add them back. I'll update with your changes, thanks! RudleyDudley (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)