Template talk:Infobox Magic: The Gathering player

Having PT Wins in the box
I would like to change the "Pro Tour Top 8" and "Grand Prix Top 8" to include wins as well. For footballers for example their stats are shown as "Games played (goals)" and I think a similar format could very well be applied here, too: "Grand Prixs won (Top 8)" This way all major achievements of a player would be available at a glance. Comments? Opposition? OdinFK (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, I think it should be the other way around. i.e. top 8's (wins). To use the foot ball caps (goals) analogy, you can't score if you're not capped. Likewise, you can't win if you don't make the top eight. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I considered doing it the other way around and I know that it would fit the analogy better. I don't know if the caps (goals) are denoted the way they are because you can't score a goal when you are not in the game. Isn't it more like that the caps are the main stat that you want to show and the goals are just some piece of additional information. Goals isn't even that meaningful in football and you would rarely want to present the goals without the number of games whereas the number of games alone is already quite meaningful.


 * For the Wins (Top 8) as a Magic player I consider both values as being of about the same importance. For an outsider reading such an article, I think they are much better off getting the wins presented as the main stat. Then I might be wrong in my interpretation of the denotation altogether... OdinFK (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought of it as main stat (secondary stat), but now that you put it that way it makes sense, and to be honest it seems like an unnecessary hassle to change every article without really improving it in any way. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PT Debut
I suggest adding the debut Pro Tour of a player to the infobox. In my opinion this is much more meaningful than many of the other stats presented. Arguably one could also include the last PT a player attended although this is a bit tedious to update. In each case the finish in that PT could also be added in brackets. OdinFK (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PT Debut seems like a meaningful enough stat to merit inclusion, although it may be a little difficult to find for some players. The last PT played stat on the other hand seems to temporary. Maybe consider including only for players who are retired. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the players are Hall of Famers anyway. For these the debut is easy to find. For most of the others you can find their debut on their Pro Player card if they have one. For even different players (LSV comes to mind) you can look up when they become eligible for the Hall of Fame and browse the PT archives of the season ten years before. If you still can't find the stats for somebody, well dig or leave it at that...


 * I know that most recent PT attendance is something often very temporary (some of the other stats are too btw). The reason I proposed it was that you actually have some kind of gauge for how retired the player actually is. Still I'm not too sure about whether it is useful to have this kind of info. Anyway I will add the debut to the infobox now. OdinFK (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Replace Limited and Constructed with Total Rating?
As the Total Rating has become the main rating for all players wouldn't it make sense to replace the highest Limited and highest Constructed Rating with highest Total rating? Actually that may be hard to find, but I don't think the other rating categories merit inclusion anymore since only Total is really good for anything anymore. OdinFK (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is no real opposition to remove the Constructed and Limited ratings as these are not really used anymore. Since Wizards has not made any useful rating statistics available in a long time I suggest we remove the highest rating point altogether. Doesn't make sense to have one or two lines for information we can never get our hands on anyway. PT median finish is theoretically accessible for some players, but it is mostly inspired by the Hall of Fame statistics, yet something we cannot reliably get up to date information about either. So I suggest to remove it as well. OdinFK (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything suggested above. Creet (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Replace ratings cats with Planeswalker Level
In the previous post I suggested replacing Highest Limited/Constructed Rating with Highest Total. While it made sense at the time I forgot about it and now we have Planeswalker Points. I think Highest Ratings Categories should be removed and replaced with Planeswalker Points. Highest Rating were always incredibly hard to come by. They were basically inspired by the late Pro Player cards but these days this information is almost always original research and apt to be not up to date. Planeswalker Levels on the other hand are easy to look up for everybody and the mean Wizards currently uses to rank players. Any approval or disapproval about this? OdinFK (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links for the pro tour and grand prix?
Heya there, I came across the infobox within Brock Parker's article and actually didn't know what "Grand Prix" and "Pro Tour" was referring to (nor the infobox as a whole) until I looked it up. I've noticed that they each have an article already and feel like it'd be easier to understand what the infobox as a whole is referring to if they were given interwiki links. Would that be okay with everybody? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me, but note that Grand Prix and Pro Tour events are already linked to in the Achievements section on most player pages. Hahahopp (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro Tours played
Although this is information that often needs updating, I thought it'd be a useful stat to have. The issue is that there is no official reference to point to (beyond simply the Event Coverage Archive); one would have to make this calculation manually. That said, I'm entirely capable and willing to do this. Hahahopp (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, but Wouldn't this fall under original information then? OdinFK (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Similar to the median stat. So I won't do it here, unless we also want to include the player's entire Pro Tour history, optimally in a table that's collapsed by default, something like this:


 * But I don't know if it's worth the trouble to do this. Hahahopp (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)