This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Magic: The Gathering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Magic: The GatheringWikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringTemplate:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringMagic: The Gathering articles

"Flanking represents the advantage of fighting on horseback"??

What would you base this interpretation on? Any source?

I would interpret flanking quite literally as attacking someone "in his flank" and thus catching him by surprise. --171.24.224.115 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, flanking tactics are not only about surprise. You could even say, that the added mobility due to horsemanship only allows attacking "in his flank", thus being able to flank is an advantage of fighting on horseback, but enough of the blubbering. The statement is unreferenced and I could not come up with a source for it even if I had to. I think it should be deleted.

The source of the statement is presumably the fact that all the creatures with flanking are drawn as guys riding on horseback. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article on every expansion set. There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these. Doing it by block would be better. pbp 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would slightly prefer to have the information stay on separate pages. That way when I click the link about an expansion, I don't have to spend the extra couple seconds scrolling past information on other expansions. If you're doing a detailed write-up on each storyline, and there's only one storyline for each block, then I would see a slight reason to consolidate. And if you have a strong reason to consolidate, then sure, be bold and do it. But I'm not seeing one. I think it would be a better use of editor time to look up information to add, like the size of the print run for each expansion, the number of sheets in the printing, the number of boosters or starter packs per box, the number of each rarity in each booster or starter, the rate of printing/cutting errors, and so on.--Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your only defense for keeping is to "[save time scrolling]." That's what a Table of Contents is for. Click on the item you want, and no scrolling is involved. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article on every expansion set. There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these. Doing it by block would be better. pbp 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you should be bold and do a merger for every block. If you don't do it all in one fell swoop, others will undo your work, because it appears that things need "their own page." But I would allow for symbols of each expansion to be pictured. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]