MTG Wiki talk:WikiProject Tournament deck articles

Decks over time

Do we want this to expand/update the "Tournament Decks" category, or do we want to clean it up in general. Where a deck exists in multiple formats, should each format deck get it's own page, or should one page be created for the Archetype (to pull example from the project, Merfolk) with differences between the deck in different formats, or should each deck get it's own page? If there's multiple versions of a deck (Blue, UW, Bant Spirits in Explorer), do we reference them as separate decks, or discuss the differences between builds.

Basically, I want to know if we want to keep it as "Decks" or discuss them more as archetypes, because I see value in both. Knowing what "RUG Threshold" was as a deck is different than knowing that it transformed into "Delver" as an archetype which has gone though dozens of versions since with a career of cards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColonelError (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 March 2025.

I don't have an answer to this, sorry. It's a great question and one I've been contemplating for a while, long before this WikiProject kicked off. I started playing Magic just before Mirrodin released and my go-to thought experiment for this has always been Affinity. It's a popular and enduring archetype that's carried on for over 20 years and can be found in basically every 60-card constructed format. But a deck labelled "Affinity" today in 2025 (e.g. Abzan Affinity from Spotlight: Modern, Utrecht, Netherlands) looks absolutely nothing like the "Affinity" decks from when Modern began as a format back in 2011 (e.g. Mono-Red Affinity from Pro Tour Philadelphia 2011). And yet, if you track the decklist through time you can see how the 2025 build is achieved through a series of changes from the 2011 version. My current thinking is:

• Each format should be separate articles, even if the decks are conceptually the same. The context those decks exist in are very different. The metagame you have to deal with in Legacy is so completely different from Standard that the decks aren't compatible. It might be the same deck, but it's not the same environment.
• The evolution of the deck "archetype" (for want of a better word), should be tracked within the one article. But I have no idea how to draw a line and say "after this point, the deck is so different it needs a new article." That's probably going to come through the deck history (e.g. a ban announcement or a set rotation) but I have a funny feeling it'll be unique for each deck.
• Maybe, maybe there needs to be an overarching "archetype" article. Reanimator is a good example. There are always reanimator decks but what they're reanimating and how they're doing it will change over time and across formats.

These are all just half-baked ideas. Feel free to take 'em or leave 'em. -- RivalRowan (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Doing some thinking maybe we want to do a, "UW Control (2019) (Standard)" page for Tournament decks so there's a nice record of "What did Standard UW Control look like in 2019 and how did it perform", but we have a separate Deck Archetypes section where you can have "This is what UW control's main strategy is in each format and how it plays" where you can talk about the archetype and it's evolution, pointing to specific moments in time by pointing to the deck article without needing to clog those articles up with deck lists. The Deck page can go into the specific construction and performance, and have a link in the intro to the archetype if there's an existing entry. There are plenty of deck archetypes where it won't be a stub, and would be helpful especially for Legacy/Vintage so someone can figure out "What is Tin Fins" without reading about a specific deck. (And apologies for poor edit etiquette, first time editing a wiki that's not just making small corrections) --ColonelError (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)