Wikipedia needs your help. Should it show Coldsnap as part of the Ice Age block or chronologically below Dissension?
The Wikipedia list of Magic sets contains a table of all expansion sets (non-core sets). This table groups sets within their blocks. It has always grouped Ice Age, Alliances, and Coldsnap within the Ice Age block. According to the Internet Archive, it has been listed this way since at least September 1, 2009.
On April 27, 2017, a Wikipedia user decided to move Coldsnap from the Ice Age block down to its chronological place between Dissension and Time Spiral. While doing so, the user also removed the Ice Age block heading. I cited the Wizards announcement of Coldsnap to justify my restoring Coldsnap within the Ice Age block, but my restoration was undone. This change is being discussed on the article's Talk page.
I bring the question to MTG Salvation community: Should the Wikipedia page list the expansion sets by block or strictly chronologically? Answer the poll, reply in the comments, and please share any information about how the Wikipedia moderators may resolve such an issue.
...being awesome with a violin doesn't mean you're awesome at writing your own songs. And writing good songs doesn't mean you're good enough at playing an instrument or singing to get a contract with a label.
Reflecting Pool: You know, technically, I *CAN* make any color of mana.
Exotic Orchard: Prove it. Do it right now.
Reflecting Pool: Well, not right now. I need some condi....
Exotic Orchard: LIES. GO DIE IN A FIRE.
Reflecting Pool:
Answer the poll, reply in the comments, and please share any information about how the Wikipedia moderators may resolve such an issue.
I can tell you right now that Wikipedia editors (there are no "moderators") won't care what some random internet poll says. They will want reliable sources discussing what block the set belongs to (or whether it's its own stand-alone set). I would look for articles from the mothership discussing whether it counts as part of the Ice Age block, and third-party articles discussing the same. But not just any third-party articles, they have to be considered reliable. Go to Wikipedia and search for WP:RS to see what constitutes being reliable.
I'll refrain from giving opinion consisting of a variety of expletives of Wikipedia but I will point out that Wikipedia tends to consist mostly of people who think they know anything but end up knowing nothing. This hobbles first order sources. It also causes weird problems since no one is an expert.
Case in point, Wikipedia maintains a nice list that cross referenced in several pages. Someone deleted all of the cross references essentially oprhaning the list. I reverted the edits and cited why the cross references were valuable. Long story short, the list remained and ended up expanding into three distinct lists. I think the problem was the individual couldn't or wouldn't understand why a list would have any value at all.
Sounds like the same here. A list of both would have its own merits. Chronological list is invaluable for release dates but a block list would be invaluable to anyone wanting to build decks for a specific block. Or in this case, understand why Clodsnap was released so late for a block.
Honestly, I agree with User:SnowFire on the talk page. The article is "List of Magic: The Gathering sets", not "List of Magic: The Gathering blocks". I think chronological ordering by set release is more relevant to the article than keeping sets from a block together.
That said, if I were writing the article, instead of putting the blocks as their own rows spanning the width of the table (which, honestly, looks really ugly), I would put the block as another column and make the table sortable ({| class="wikitable sortable" for the first line of the table code). The default ordering could then be chronological, you can see that Coldsnap is part of the Ice Age block, and a user could sort by the block column to see Coldsnap move adjacent to Ice Age and Alliances.
Thanks to everyone for their input. This forum page is a good place to hash out this issue, leaving the Wikipedia Talk page for the more condensed input.
I would put the block as another column and make the table sortable
This is the best solution, allowing the table to be viewed by block or chronologically. When I get some time, I'll try to draft that. Unfortunately, I have no special tools for editing Wikipedia, so I'm doing it all in the raw markup which is pretty intense.
...being awesome with a violin doesn't mean you're awesome at writing your own songs. And writing good songs doesn't mean you're good enough at playing an instrument or singing to get a contract with a label.
Reflecting Pool: You know, technically, I *CAN* make any color of mana.
Exotic Orchard: Prove it. Do it right now.
Reflecting Pool: Well, not right now. I need some condi....
Exotic Orchard: LIES. GO DIE IN A FIRE.
Reflecting Pool:
The word "block" has a specific meaning in the context of Magic the Gathering that directly answers this question. A block is a group of consecutively released sets that are grouped together for the purpose of constructed play. They make up the pool of cards for "___ Block" constructed, simultaneously rotate out of standard and extended (while extended existed), and are generally drafted together.
Ice Age block was Ice Age, Homelands, and Alliances. Coldsnap was released a decade later. It revived the old Ice Age lore and mechanics, but that doesn't make it part of the block because none of the things that define a block apply to it and the Ice Age sets.
I would put the block as another column and make the table sortable
This is the best solution, allowing the table to be viewed by block or chronologically. When I get some time, I'll try to draft that. Unfortunately, I have no special tools for editing Wikipedia, so I'm doing it all in the raw markup which is pretty intense.
I agree, that does sound like an excellent solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Wikipedia list of Magic sets contains a table of all expansion sets (non-core sets). This table groups sets within their blocks. It has always grouped Ice Age, Alliances, and Coldsnap within the Ice Age block. According to the Internet Archive, it has been listed this way since at least September 1, 2009.
On April 27, 2017, a Wikipedia user decided to move Coldsnap from the Ice Age block down to its chronological place between Dissension and Time Spiral. While doing so, the user also removed the Ice Age block heading. I cited the Wizards announcement of Coldsnap to justify my restoring Coldsnap within the Ice Age block, but my restoration was undone. This change is being discussed on the article's Talk page.
I bring the question to MTG Salvation community: Should the Wikipedia page list the expansion sets by block or strictly chronologically? Answer the poll, reply in the comments, and please share any information about how the Wikipedia moderators may resolve such an issue.
FireFox31
Validating Netdecks and Land Smackdown
I can tell you right now that Wikipedia editors (there are no "moderators") won't care what some random internet poll says. They will want reliable sources discussing what block the set belongs to (or whether it's its own stand-alone set). I would look for articles from the mothership discussing whether it counts as part of the Ice Age block, and third-party articles discussing the same. But not just any third-party articles, they have to be considered reliable. Go to Wikipedia and search for WP:RS to see what constitutes being reliable.
Case in point, Wikipedia maintains a nice list that cross referenced in several pages. Someone deleted all of the cross references essentially oprhaning the list. I reverted the edits and cited why the cross references were valuable. Long story short, the list remained and ended up expanding into three distinct lists. I think the problem was the individual couldn't or wouldn't understand why a list would have any value at all.
Sounds like the same here. A list of both would have its own merits. Chronological list is invaluable for release dates but a block list would be invaluable to anyone wanting to build decks for a specific block. Or in this case, understand why Clodsnap was released so late for a block.
That said, if I were writing the article, instead of putting the blocks as their own rows spanning the width of the table (which, honestly, looks really ugly), I would put the block as another column and make the table sortable ({| class="wikitable sortable" for the first line of the table code). The default ordering could then be chronological, you can see that Coldsnap is part of the Ice Age block, and a user could sort by the block column to see Coldsnap move adjacent to Ice Age and Alliances.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This is the best solution, allowing the table to be viewed by block or chronologically. When I get some time, I'll try to draft that. Unfortunately, I have no special tools for editing Wikipedia, so I'm doing it all in the raw markup which is pretty intense.
FireFox31
Validating Netdecks and Land Smackdown
Ice Age block was Ice Age, Homelands, and Alliances. Coldsnap was released a decade later. It revived the old Ice Age lore and mechanics, but that doesn't make it part of the block because none of the things that define a block apply to it and the Ice Age sets.
I agree, that does sound like an excellent solution.