Category talk:Magic sets

Standardization of set names
I have noticed some inconsistencies in how disambig information is capitalized. Contrast Champions of Kamigawa (set) and Vintage (Format). We should probably come up with a standard so that either both of these have the additional information capitalized, or none of it.

Personally, I would prefer to see set name links always go to an article for that set name, with in-line disambiguation to something else. For example, have Arabian Nights link directly to Arabian Nights (set) and have the first line be: ''This article is about the expansion set Arabian Nights. For the comic book of the same name, see Arabian Nights (comic).''

The fact that every set article right now has a name that will essentially never be used unpiped seems problematic. --Binary 11:55, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * As people will likely look for sets more than for storylines, here, I agree that in-line disambig as said above seems like a very good idea.


 * Also, virtually all of these articles are still pathetically short. I'd like to see all of them brought up at least to the level of the Ice Age (set) page. And, upon the question above, when a parenthetical descriptor is added after a topic, MOST articles here use lower case, as I just did. So, that should be the standard. VestDan 10:57, 16 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Glad to see you agree. I don't want to go through every set and make those changes just yet, as I'd also really like to see some kind of an infobox template for sets similar to what they have on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I want to copy the template outright (not to mention there could be issues with that based on the differing licenses) but I would like something functionally similar. Then we can go through the set articles and make all the changes at once.--Binary 08:59, 17 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Such an info box would also be useful in storylines, for stuff like characters (Name, Birth, Death, Species, Sources, etc). I have no idea how to go about doing that, though. VestDan 18:30, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Question Number 2: Insert redirects or rename?
To solve the above problem, we will have to do one of the things:

1)Keep the articles names as "Set Name (set)", and add disambig text like: Set Name redirects here. This article is about the expansion set. For other uses, see "Set Name (disambiguation)". Then ensure any link to "Set Name" redirects to "Set Name (set)". 2)Rename all articles currently as "Set Name (set)" to "Set Name", then include disambig text like ''This article is about the expansion set. For other uses, see "Set Name (disambiguation)"''

I personally have no strong preference either way... Number 1 is probably slightly more elegant. --Binary 10:52, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

Core Sets
Are core sets (Revised, Unlimited, 4th edition, etc) supposed to be included on this page or not? i notice a few of them creeping in. I feel that they perhaps could exist on this page in a separate "Core Sets" section, and perhaps also an "Other" section to include Anthology, Chronicles, Beatdown, etc. so that all releases can be accessible from this one page, and also making browsing easier. ~BAMooore 7/22/06

Reordering
I think we should move the set template to the top, since it is easier to find individual sets in the table than in the timeline. Also having multiple timelines is confusing, one master timeline is probably enough. Any thoughts? Oracle of Truth 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with both. The bottom one is better to navigate, so it can be moved to the top, but I wouldn't delete the other one - it's good to see chronology. -- M ORT (T) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove the entire chronology, what I meant was that we have different timelines for regular expansions, non-block sets, core sets, etc. Personally I'd prefer to merge them, i.e. a single chronology of all sets placed after the set template. Oracle of Truth 09:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I like these two timelines though. I find both of them useful. Sometimes I need to look at all sets, sometimes, I want to compare core sets only... -- M ORT (T) 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)