Talk:Modern Masters

Expansion code

Shouldn't the expansion code be MMA instead of MM1? At least that's what Gatherer is using. —Fenhl 07:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I check the archive page: http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/products/card-set-archive/modern-masters. - Yandere Sliver 09:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you know if the official code for Modern Masters 2015 is MM2 or following the logic of the duel decks MMB? For me Gatherer is essentially not working. - Yandere Sliver 09:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's MM2 according to Gatherer. —Fenhl 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Name

Shouldn't this set and page simply be referred to as Modern Masters? There's no (2013) anywhere in their branding that I can see. The product page doesn't have it either. - Minomelo (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We have a few articles with that naming convention. Masters Edition (I), Deck Builder's Toolkit (2010), and Commander (2011). Essentially whenever a product starts a series of products with similar naming conventions.

That being said I am open to changing that in general. Essentially deciding that product pages always exist without parenthesis distinction. However we need a good plan for Deck Builder's Toolkit and Commander, because both terms are loaded with meaning and most people would probably not associated the respective products with that term but rather the product lines which were started due to them. - Yandere Sliver 01:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we should decide this on a case-by-case basis. For example, someone typing “Modern Masters” into the search probably wants this article, and if they don't we can always add a link to the disambiguation page to the top. The term “Commander”, on the other hand, has so many different meanings, so I think it should stay as is. —Fenhl 01:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point and I do think a renaming Masters Edition and Modern Masters is entirely unproblematic. However I do think general rules like this are important. Handling things on case by case basis often creates messy situations. Imo set pages should always take priority over any page with a similar name, simply because much of the wiki infrastructure depends on them. That would be my suggestion. - Yandere Sliver 08:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point, I agree. —Fenhl 22:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I moved all set pages with parenthesis information to their root name. That was surprisingly painless. If we ever want to make an exception to the rule we can discuss that. But currently it works fine. - Yandere Sliver 08:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)