MTG Wiki


Why do some parameters require underscores, while other require space? Circeus (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol. I don't know. I guess the underscores are for those that don't sound grammatically correct (sort of functioning like this: codeexpansion), whereas the spaces are those that do (e.g., symbol description). I guess for the sake of consistency we should use one only. Suggestions or comments? I myself would be chuffed to bits to hear any. --Magic Mage (talk!) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to add an attribute to these infoboxes for the languages each set has been printed in, then I would update each set with the specific prints. Could we arrange that? Chaosof99 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It can arranged. What do you have in mind though? Where can we find this information, and what are reliable sources that may be cited? I know that some sets have this information in Wizards 'news releases' (if you can call them that), but some do not. --Magic Mage (talk!) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Most card searches (,, probably Gatherer too) have information about the languages a set was printed in. I assume the official pages of WOTC also contain this information. I simply want to add a listing of the language a set was printed in. Nothing fancy. Chaosof99 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Implications of your edit and removal of event days[]

RE: this edit.

Have you considered the fact that information in this will not show and this may influence, negatively, pages? Any reference contained in the infobox, which usually is the case for prerelease cards, will now show up as "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named XXX".

Rather than bloody-mindedly destroy, why not modify such that it works? --Magic Mage (talk!) 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

'Chronology' link[]

When clicking on the Chronology link in the infobox, it showed me Category:Magic sets, where I'd expect, due to the word chronology, more something like Set#List_of_Magic_expansions_and_sets. Can this be changed, or is there a strong reason to link to a category instead of an actual chronology? The template is protected, so can't edit it myself.

Done. —Fenhl 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Set code references[]

Since we've had incorrect set codes in the past, I think it would make sense to add a parameter for providing a source for the set code. (One such source could be this article, for example.) Any articles with this template where the proposed parameter is missing could be included in a maintenance category, and a {{Citation needed}} could be displayed automatically. Any objections? —Fenhl 07:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea. But this is quite a bit of work to get this update on every set article. Not that we have done so in the past. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 08:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The maintenance category should make things easier. —Fenhl 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
True. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added the parameter, and edited Return to Ravnica to include it. Should these references be formatted differently? —Fenhl 10:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're not palnning to add those links yourself, I recommend to remove it again. It causes clutter, and most of them are undisputed. Besides, a lot of the pages link to "announcing" pages from Wizards. --Hunter (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Italic text
I am planning to, just trying to get feedback first on whether the format of the reference (just a plain URL) is okay. —Fenhl 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Another thing which is problematic is a nonexistent product code. Because some expansions genuinely have none, and it is hard to find a citation where it is stated that a certain set has no product code. Legendary Cube is a good example for this. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 11:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I did a small code update, so that only the category will be set. "Citation needed" also does auto-categorization and so it becomes a bit convoluted. Also the category will only be set if a product code is entered. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 11:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
After doing some more research, I believe that we should remove the Card Set Archive on Wizards' website as a source, as it often contradicts other official sources, particularly for sets released before M15. For example, Theros is listed as THR, while every other official source, including Gatherer, the set announcement post, and the answer on Matt Tabak's tumblr to my question regarding this inconsistency, all list THS. Instead, I propose that we should use the file names used for the set symbols in Gatherer's HTML source as an additional source. For example, these would provide sources for Commander's Arsenal being CM1, which unlike the set code CMA listed on the Card Set Archive does not contradict the announcement of Commander Anthology with the same set code, and for Duel Decks: Heroes vs. Monsters being DDL, which unlike the set code HVM listed on the Card Set Archive is consistent with the naming scheme of other Duel Decks set codes. —Fenhl 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes sounds very reasonable. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 22:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Display Title[]

I am not entirely sure if that would work, but why don't we do include this bit of code in the infobox? {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{{set name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''}} - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 18:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional fields[]

I propose adding three new rows to the infobox, which would be useful for people using the wiki as a quick reference:

  • Format legality: Shows in which of the four “big” formats (Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and Standard) cards from this set are legal.
  • Booster pack contents: The total number of cards in each booster pack, as well as a very short summary of the rarity distribution.
  • Booster box contents: The total number of booster packs in each booster box.

I often use the relevant articles on the formats and on boosters to look this up, and I feel like having this information in a consistent location in an infobox would be more efficient than having to look through lists of sets. —Fenhl 22:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Booster Packs Box are fairly standardized. Thar sounds more like a general information found in the booster packs article. I also don't get the format legality. Main sets rotate into standard, everything that is or was Standard legal from Eighth Edition forward is Modern legal. The Eternal legality is simply every black and white bordered card ever printed. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 22:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I second what Yandere Sliver said. The additional fields should be used to show specific information of the set, but not generic information that is common -Tuamir (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In each case, the details are not necessarily clear to new or returning players. For example, it appears that supplementary products arbitrarily use reduced (24) or regular (36) booster box sizes. Also, reading just the articles on the formats or the Booster pack article requires knowledge of the order in which sets were released. —Fenhl 22:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, but I am not sure if the infobox is the right place to present that information. I mean for a returning player Standard legal or Commander sets are probably most important when it comes to legality or the question what they can do with their old cards. It is more a question about formats and blocks and not about sets. I agree that it feels quite arbitrary, if 24 or 36 boxes are used. But I am not sure how the infobox helps here. The change of that number would be just as arbitrary in the wiki as the press release from wizards. That seems more like information which would be found in the specific set article itself - Not necessarily in the infobox. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 19:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Standard-legal set chronology?[]

Do people think it would be a good idea for the infobox to include a set's position among "premier sets" (i.e. standard-legal expansions)? I don't intimately know the chronology of expansions, and I often find myself looking at an article and wondering which block came before/after, but the set chronology section of the infobox shows some supplemental product instead of the standard-legal set that preceded/succeeded the one I'm looking at. What I have in mind is optional parameters named something like 'prev_premier' and 'next_premier' that, if used, create another little section at the bottom of the infobox that just displays exactly that information. If unused, that box doesn't appear. Opinions? --WGnome (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Since they moved to the 3+1 model the stand-alone expansion are essentially just all expansions in chronological order. But I think I get what you mean the overall chronology becomes quite clutter with all this product they are releasing now:
I have played with the thought to group the 3+1 together like we did in the Block structure day.
|series = Core Set 2021 rotation
|first = Throne of Eldraine
|second = Theros Beyond Death
|third = Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths
someting like this - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I put together an example of what I have in mind on this page. I have two versions of my proposed Infobox there: one with the new parameters filled in, and one without them filled in (just to demonstrate that, if this change were to be made, it would not disrupt existing use). If you look at the bottom part of the first infobox, you will see a section labelled "Premier set chronology", where the previous set is Rivals of Ixalan, and the next set is M19. I am proposing that these parameters be used for the box on all core sets and expansions, in release order (so at the beginning, you have Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, ARN, ATQ, 3ED, LEG, DRK, etc., at the end you have WAR, M20, ELD, THB, IKO, M21, etc., and somewhere in the middle you have AVR, M13, RTR, etc.). --WGnome (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly not a big fan. I think it is rather minimal gain for quite a bit more clutter. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 16:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest eliminating entirely all supplemental products from the existing "Magic chronology" section of the infobox. It is useful information, both for understanding the story and for being aware of past Standard environments, to know that M10 was preceded by Rise of the Eldrazi and succeeded by Scars of Mirrodin. That M10 was preceded by Archenemy and succeeded by From The Vault: Relics, on the other hand, is merely a piece of trivia. Therefore, if only one of these things can be included, the standard-legal set chronology should be preferred. -- 17:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I prefer Yandere's solution (changing the upper box). Or maybe giving it the heading "Standard sets" and giving each rotation another (background) color. --Hunter (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
So I updated the infobox. Does this work? is that better? - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous/next link from Standard & block chronology[]

First of all, awesome job to those who worked on the "Z Standard"/WYX chronology section of the box in 2020. Although if they are dropping core sets once again, maybe we'll need yet another naming style change :P

Anyway, following up on that, I was thinking of adding small arrows, either using < and > text or possibly little icons, linking to "the next standard cycle" and "the previous standard cycle". Nothing fancy, just the first set of the next one or the last set of the previous one. So for instance, in the four set articles for ZNR, KHM, STX, AFR, to the right of "Forgotten Realms Standard" the > arrow would link to MID; to the left the < arrow would link back to M21.

As the anonymous poster in the previous thread pointed out, it's frankly a pain in the ass to browse through the standard-legal sets chronologically. It is appropriate to have a complete timeline, but I agree if I had to pick one or the other, I'd toss the long one and just focus on the "premier sets", especially now that there are more and more supplemental things for digital, Secret Lair, remasters, etc. Luckily, we don't have to drop either! Just a subtle button to keep going if you're clicking along.

(Would also be cool if we could have a customizable timeline component with checkboxes to turn on/off "standard-legal expansion sets, core sets, straight-to-modern, your-format-here, summer special sets, paper-only, digital-only, sets with under 50 cards", etc. But now I'm just dreaming.)

Anyway, just throwing the idea out there despite not having time to start it right away; I might work on it later or someone else could. I was thinking parameters standard_previous and standard_next. Only thing I might need a pointer on is, if I need to be concerned about anything using a small image within the infobox, and if anyone knows of suitable "little tiny arrow icon" images already.

- jerodast (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And forgot to mention, yes, obviously we'd do this for sets using the Standard chronology as well as ones using Block chronology, e.g. Lorwyn and Morningtide would both have a little > arrow to Shadowmoor to the right of "Lorwyn block". - jerodast (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)