The current autocard link syntax works great, but it can be a bit awkward to use with plural names. It's easy to change [mtg:Lightning Bolts] to [mtg:Lightning Bolt]s. Getting correct links to cards like [mtg:Scions of Oona] requires restructuring text to use the singular name, though.

The easiest method to address this, at least that I can see, is what Wikipedia does with its link syntax: [mtg:card name|optional text overriding the link text]. Then we can easily post about how two [mtg:Scion of Oona|Scions of Oona] give each other shroud.

  • 4
    This has the added bonus of letting us be even lazier when talking about iconic or previously-mentioned cards - e.g. [mtg:Lightning Bolt|Bolt] or [mtg:Karn Liberated|Karn]. May 3, 2012 at 13:26
  • 2
    @IanPugsley [mtg:Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon|Skittles]
    – Alex P
    May 3, 2012 at 14:14
  • I forgot all about nicknames! Though [mtg:Wolfbitten Captive|Werewalla] and such isn't really as important as the plural or shortening, it's nice that this one feature could add this much value. May 3, 2012 at 14:20
  • Yeah +1 from me, then I can talk about old school [mtg:Prodigal Sorcerer|Tim].
    – ghoppe
    May 3, 2012 at 16:52
  • +! good thinking.
    – Stephen
    May 6, 2012 at 2:01
  • Just being devil's advocate, but wouldn't a correct plural of "Scion of Oona" be "Scion of Oonas"? I'm aware that any old scions would be "scions of Oona", but as a complete proper noun "Scion of Oona" referring to a card by that name, wouldn't the actual plural put the "s" at the end? Still think it would be a nice idea though, just making trouble :P
    – Johno
    Jun 14, 2012 at 10:58
  • @Johno Talking about "Scion of Oonas" breaks the cards' connection with the fictional things they represent. At which point I'm going to start giving them awful nicknames instead of referring to them by name, anyway. :)
    – Alex P
    Sep 24, 2012 at 21:40
  • @AlexP Fair point. If I was referring to cards I'd say "Scion of Oonas", but I guess I should let myself be absorbed into the mythology a bit more!
    – Johno
    Sep 25, 2012 at 8:35

1 Answer 1


I asked about this and, given how the current linking add-on is coded, this would not be possible. The inner part must be an exact match to the actual card name, or the whole thing basically goes awry. Adding "plural" support isn't really possible, from what I understand. Your suggestion of Wikipedia syntax is good! But there's a much easier workaround:

Just append "cards" to the phrase. So, to parrot your examples back at you:

It's not the same level of elegance, perhaps, but that workaround should be fine for the vast majority of usages.

  • 1
    You're all free to tell me I'm wrong and insist I go back and ask again. :)
    – Aarthi
    Sep 24, 2012 at 20:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .