For issues where card tables or lists are not appearing correctly, the "Purge cache" option in the "More" menu should resolve the problem.
Losing stars[edit source]
I lost a star on Rank 20, so I am not sure that section is entirely correct. Additionally, the use of "higher," "lower," "above," and "below" in the "Ranks" section is a bit confusing, since sometimes higher means higher number, and sometimes it means higher rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 February 2014
- First point: yes, a grammatical typo I think; I've fixed it. Second point: I quite agree, but that's the way Blizzard have designed the game. Higher = lower, and lower = higher, unfortunately. As far as I've heard in forums, streams, etc, it's common usage, and natural enough too. I think the current article is okay; it's just something people have to get used to. It's the same as used in competitive sports such as racing, eg. "going up into 1st place". -- Taohinton (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Distribution of Players in Ranked[edit source]
So in the section that lists the percentage of players in each section, it says 75% are at bottom, 17.5% are between 15 and 10, 5.5% are between 10 and 5, 2% are 5 and up, and 0.5% are in legend. The only problem is, 75 + 17.5 + 5.5 + 2 + 0.5 = 100.5%, which is impossible. Anyone know where the mistake is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 March 2015
- I'm not sure there's any way of telling; Blizzard haven't provided any more specific data. Presumably the issue is simply that they've rounded up a little too much. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Link to playable[edit source]
In the sentence "The choice of game format determines which cards are eligible to feature in play, (...)", the last words are linked to the playable page. But the text on that page does not say anything about cards in wild vs standard. Should we update the "playable" page, or change this sentence to link to another page (e.g. wild format)? -- BigHugger (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- That page does mention 'Wild format cards are usually understood to be "playable", although a person might refer to cards "playable in standard format" to specify a smaller subset of cards.' Overall I was trying to reference the idea that wild vs standard is a choice made after already narrowing the group of cards down by excluding boss cards, Tavern Brawl cards, and so forth. It might be better linked somewhere else, or rephrased, but certainly "eligible to feature in play" is what "playable" is all about.
- I should note that I only very recently created this page, because I felt we needed a simple term to describe "collectible or uncollectible cards you see in 'normal' games". "Playable" is not a perfect name for it, partly because as an open-ended and informal term it has several other meanings, but it seemed like the best choice available. Anyway, I welcome other edits/suggestions to that page as well as changes to the way it's linked into other pages - this is a first/second draft and it's bound to be awkward until more people have helped sand down the rough edges :) - jerodast (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)