We are currently performing an upgrade to our software. This upgrade will bring MediaWiki from version 1.31 to 1.33. While the upgrade is being performed on your wiki it will be in read-only mode. For more information check here.

Category talk:Tournament decks

From MTG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Split[edit source]

I believe that we need to split decks bewteen[sic] current competive[sic] decks and past decks. As is we have older decks missed in and it makes it a bad source of information unless we specify.User:SorryGuy

Agreed, what we have now will be current, and we will add on an "Old Decks" sections. I didn't even think of this issue, glad you noticed.Voice of AllTalk 16:50, 15 December 2005 (CST)

Is Madness viable currently? Has it not been completely metagamed out? QmunkE 02:59, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

What in the world is Hypnotic Control? I'm trying to help flesh out some of the standard decks but I've never heard of that one. Is it suppose to be BW Control? --Shadowin 17:50, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

While attempting to make this stuff better, I noticed that including the category Tournament Decks tag on the individual deck page caused it to show up below the edited stuff. Obviously this causes some funny looking stuff. What would be the best way to make this stuff look right? Not include the category or change the category page? --Shadowin 19:02, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

I don't know about trying to have multiple sections on 'current' and 'older' tourney decks. We would have to update the lists for EVERY major tournament. The Wiki[sic] should not be where people go for 'tech,' but for information in general -- if they want to know what decks are doing well, there is mtg.com and elsewhere. The deck articles here should provide information on the origins, evolution, and success of decks, but if we tried to keep it 'up to date,' it would just become a bad strategy site. Not to mention, the potential for posters to keep trying to post their 'competative' decks, which could cause all sorts of trouble. VestDan 20:16, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

If there has to be a "split" It only requires extra lists where the decks can be found. Perhaps a list can be made for every time a new expansion is released, because splits in time will occur at releases. Faceless Wanderer 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wizards community boards has a pretty extensive deck encyclopedia: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=456567 (dunno how to do links off the top of my head). It includes even older decks, like Balance. Could be a good place to start. VestDan 11:35, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Deck template[edit source]

Should we look into the possibility of a deck template? While I agree I don't necessarily think we need to be seen as a clearinghouse {sic}} for the most up-to-date lists, I think many of the archetype articles should at least have one decklist for illustrative purposes. Formatting could get pretty hairy unless we have a template similar to what's on the forums. --Binary 10:40, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

I just started the Template:D, though I am not sure how to lay it out best.Voice of AllTalk 12:45, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
Can we do it in two columns? --Binary 08:06, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Capitalization[edit source]

The word "deck" isn't capitalized in the articles for other formats, but it is for Standard. Any opinions on which should be the standard? I'm leaning towards not capitalized. --Binary 08:03, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Introductory statement[edit source]

This page is linked from the main page. It needs some sort of introductory statement instead of just being a list broken down by categories. --GeoMike 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reiterating what I said again - need a introductory statement/paragraph on the page. --GeoMike 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. MM (talk!) 12:35, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

Cat. name[edit source]

I wish it were "Tournament decks". It's so strenuous to change it now, but it must be done; if only the dudes in the beginning didn't get it not-so-right. >.> Oh dear. MM (talk!) 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Format labels[edit source]

I think that, for the non-eternal formats, you may to want to have a more specific format label. For example, over the past weekend, you would have had to go back and change all the standard decks to extended, and then standard becomes an empty category. If instead you think of the formats as describing what sets are included in the decks, then you could, for example, include Dragonstorm [TSP-9] under Standard, where it is understood that you are talking about a deck that was in Standard when 9th edition and Time Spiral were the current sets. Under this scheme, Standard could include any deck, current or from the past, that was made up of cards from 2 consecutive blocks. Ditto with Extended. Such an archive of decks might be useful for someone reading up on how different metagames operated during different seasons (e.g., what decks were competetive during Invasion block?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir christopher (talkcontribs).

Some link by MagicRage[edit source]

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=83063 MagicRage 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Category[edit source]

It has been suggested that we add categories for Standard for historic purposes like [[Category: Ravnica-Time Spiral Standard]], [[Category: Time Spiral-Lorwyn Standard]]. What do people think? --GeoMike 01:51, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Yup, would make sense. The article should still mention which sets exactly were legal at that time (quite significant for Time Spiral and Lorwyn). Oracle of Truth 07:28, 15 April 2008 (BST)

Someone rotate out please...[edit source]

Shards is in, so the standard decks need to be edited, plus the cruise quialifier might add somemore new standard viabile decks. Either way, ya know, TS Blcok and Coldsnap are out...

Okay, I'm updating this entire page by force!

Needs update[edit source]

I don't play constucted standard but every blue moon but for those that do know could this page please be updated. Thanks Xiahou 22:31, 26 October 2011 (EDT)