Alright, so this is something that was originally suggested by Plume and Dani sometime back, but with the advent of my Sources megaproject, it's something I'd actively like to implement.
Right now, we list all individual cards from various card games as separate rows in an article's Sources, which leads to massive Sources bloat (IMO), and also it complicates my efforts to actively generate a list of all possible sources. This has always bothered me, and clearly it's bothered a few others, so I'd like to first mention some points:
- Individual cards are but a piece of a piece of media; they cannot (to my knowledge) in most cases be acquired individually, and are simply part of the various packs. This isn't true of everything (Force Collection and Card Trader of course) but by and large, it's true.
- We do not list every individual quest and component element in SWTOR in Appearances; we simply list the game, and use {{TORcite}} for specific references. Same goes for {{CSWECite}}, with a few exceptions.
- We don't list page numbers for reference books, novels, or anything similar.
So, with those out of the way, I'll say that I wholeheartedly agree with doing something about the way we list cards; the current way is unpleasant, unwieldly, inconsistent, and frankly unhelpful. Which is why I'm here to present several options, developed by various users over the last 10 years (copied from Dani's workbench):
(PLEASE NOTE: this will NOT affect references; info should still be referenced to the specific cards for accuracy)
Options
Option 1 - List sets only
Plume suggested we link to set pages instead of individual cards. This would help cut bloat for super star characters like Luke Skywalker. I've provided an example of how current Kazuda Xiono's 25 (not all cards) cards would be cut down to 11 sets.
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Star Wars: Resistance - Pilot Badges
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: SWCT 4th Anniversary
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Galactic Heritage
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: 2020 Base Series
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Ugly Holiday Sweater Series
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Heroes Weekly
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Stellar Signatures
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Dual Perceptions - Resistance
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: In Disguise
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Chrome Perspectives
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Fractured - Star Wars: Resistance
Option 2 - List sets, but include cards in multi-parameters
This option would be the same as above, but each set listing item would also include the cards in a single line, using card#= and link#= parameters. The end result would be something like this:
- Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Star Wars: Resistance - Pilot Badges (Cards: Kazuda Xiono - Star Wars: Resistance - Pilot Badges)
Option 3 - Collapsable Boxes
This option, suggested back in 2015 but never implemented, would be to add collapsable boxes around each set. This would of course be templated and made nicer format-wise.
UPDATE: I've tweaked some CSS to mock up the end result of what I'm going for, and split the above list into sets as well:
Aaand that's it. Was ready to go to CT already but Dani correctly diverted me to the SH instead, which is good cause I noticed the scrollbox option. My personal preference is options 1 or 2; I like the idea of 2 but it would also get very unwieldy very fast for articles with many cards. Cade 
Calrayn 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Just to be clear, I started that workbench to specifically discuss Topps's SWCT but if I understand correctly, you're meaning to expand this discussion to all card game media, correct? I'm pro exploring that. For a good reference, Battle of Hoth is a good example of a subject with not only has multiple Card Games but multiple expansions within those games. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) - Of the options presented, I'm most in favor of Option 3, Collapsable Boxes. For SWCT I think it should all be under one box, but I'm curious what others think about other card games: should we list the game itself as a collapsable box, or each individual expansion. I'm also curious if there should be a set number that justifies the box. I don't think the box should be used if there's only one card, but what's the sweet number that justifies it's usage? Also if we go the box route, I think we should define how to sort the cards inside. AFAIK when 2 sources have the same release date, we sort them by no established means. Cards from the same expansion will have the same release date, so it's a problem we should be aware of going into this. I think we should sort by Card # when present, but alphabetical otherwise. NBDani (they/them)Yeager's Repairs 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another option presented by Ayre on Discord yesterday was to list the SWCT app, and then detail individual card in the Indexpage. Just tossing into the discussion. NBDani (they/them)Yeager's Repairs 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing how index pages are optional (and should stay so imo) from the perspective of reviewing/verifying status articles I think we should still strive to have cards on the page proper. Imperators II(Talk) 17:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can we have a more, um, proper example for Option 2? Because from what I read the idea is to do away with the idea of listing just one card per line, but the example is doing precisely that. Imperators II(Talk) 17:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Galactic Heritage is what you want. Here's it with 7 Kazuda cards. Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Galactic Heritage (Cards: Kazuda Xiono & Gorg, Kaz in Stormtrooper Disguise, Kazuda Xiono, Kazuda Xiono 2, Kazuda Xiono 3, Kazuda Xiono 4, Kazuda Xiono 5) —Unsigned comment by NBDani (talk • contribs)
- OK cool, thanks. I think Option 2 is the best bet - it also stylistically connects with how we're doing magazine citation templates with departments and articles and such. Imperators II(Talk) 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Galactic Heritage is what you want. Here's it with 7 Kazuda cards. Star Wars: Card Trader Set: Galactic Heritage (Cards: Kazuda Xiono & Gorg, Kaz in Stormtrooper Disguise, Kazuda Xiono, Kazuda Xiono 2, Kazuda Xiono 3, Kazuda Xiono 4, Kazuda Xiono 5) —Unsigned comment by NBDani (talk • contribs)
- Does this apply to all card games? How would options 1 and 2 work with Force Collection? ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- One thing we need to remember is that we cannot prevent bloat of any kind. Prominent subjects are going to be featured in countless sources regardless, and we shouldn't have to come up with ways to consolidate various types of sources for presentation reasons. UberSoldat93 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's a difference between removing information and simply displaying it in a more efficient way, which is what options 2-3 do. Cade Calrayn 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are the individual card sets where a subject could be only pictured in one card, and name mentioned in another, etc. This is one example of such. Card set in question is CCG and Death Star II Limited. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's a difference between removing information and simply displaying it in a more efficient way, which is what options 2-3 do. Cade
- As the founder of WP:SWCT, I believe this is a huge, but necessary step to make. Option 1 IMO isn't very specific. Say a set has a large amount of cards, by simply listing the set it makes it easier for information to be verified, as one may need to check through every card of the set. For me, Option 2 is the most attractive, as it allows for easy verification and reader simplicity (and is similar to some templates we already have such as {{HasbroCite}}). I'm pretty neutral on Option 3. AmazinglyCool (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning towards option 2, I feel like that displays it best. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Would we alter the application of collapsible boxes for subjects that only appear in 1 or 2 cards in a set? Commander Code-8 Hello There! 08:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1 should not even be an option, IMO. Personally, I don't see a problem leaving things well enough alone, but of the two viable options, 3 is best. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 13:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think Option 2 can work for the issue Hanzo listed above. NBDani (they/them)Yeager's Repairs 13:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I prefer option 3, especially with the new mock up. Less clutter. Bonzane10 (holonet) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been convinced that Option 3 is better. And now it also looks the part, thanks for that. :P Imperators II(Talk) 17:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm Team Option 3 as well. It's already how the example is formatted, but if that one goes to CT, I'd like to have it clarified that the collapsable boxes are not to be used when there is only one listed card in a particular set. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
