Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] MTG characters pages

Does anyone else feel that the MTG characters (A) pages should actually be at Characters in Magic: The Gathering (A)? I'm sure this would be much more inkeeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions for pages. Does anyone know of a bot for doing large-scale page moves? QmunkE 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would say that it would probably be a good idea to move it, just for what you said. Unfortunately, unless some admin does it, we'll have to do it manually. -- Grev 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Consider it done. Twenty-size page-moves oughtn't take too long... — Saxifrage ✎ 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • On second thought, shouldn't it be Magic: The Gathering characters: A? I believe parenthesis are only used for disambiguation (which this isn't), and the media's title typically goes first. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. The link above is in blue^... ; ) Thats only the beginning though. Deadbraincell 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice. Its done. ish. Theres probably still a few wrong links floating around, so fix them if you see any. So I guess we delete the old ones now, or just redirect?Deadbraincell 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't do that - use the move tab. The history has to be kept together for GFDL reasons. Kyle Barbour 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Infobox

I noticed that we're using two different infoboxes for the various set pages, and even then there are quite a few places where a set doesn't quite fit into the template. I had the bright idea of both combining the two templates and making it flexible enough to fit any given set. Sadly, I can't get the code right, as I want to embed table code inside a template parameter and apparently you can't do that. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, the (proposed) new template is at Template:Infobox mtgset. --Khaim 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got it working. Template:Infobox mtgset now has all the fields availible in the other infoboxes, and eliminates rows if the parameters are not supplied. So, for example, you can eliminate the "mechanics" parameter on a base set and it will simply not display the Mechanics line. Likewise for codename and a few others. --Khaim 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo & The Effects of This Project

First off; Jimbo Wales is a really bad card. Make it a 1/3 and "OPPONENTS play with their hands revealed"; and it would still probably be bad in tournament play. But I'd like to say that I'm liking this project very much. I've noticed so many more Magic articles since the last few months! It was not even that long ago when I thought about how little Wikipedia had on Magic, aside from the big main article, and a few outside articles; now, it's gotten pretty extensive. So keep up the great work! I would like to know; when was this project started? Because I want to know if it was this project's reason for the large influx of new Magic related articles, or if it's merely a coincidence. Thanks. 24.23.51.27 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll show you a really bad card! Dfrg.msc 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If Jimbo can have a Card, then why cant I?
If Jimbo can have a Card, then why cant I?
This project started around the same time that Unhinged and Black Lotus survived deletion debates (which were then called VfD). Um, that was more than two years ago. A lot of great editors wrote the set articles afterwards. If I recall correctly, it took more than a year before they were complete. BTW, good job everyone! (I didn't ever really help at all.)
And, echoing a comment above (from June or so), I hate the Jimbo card. Cool Hand Luke 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

I'm making a shortcut for the Wikiproject. Something like WP:MTG. Dfrg.msc 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done!
Shortcut:
WP:MTG

Dfrg.msc 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable cards

As near as I can tell, these sections are unsourced/original research and possibly contain points of view. I've can't find an article anywhere that claims Braid of Fire ([[Coldsnap#Notable cards|CS) is a notable card, which probably has something to do with the fact that it hasn't done anything notable and is in actuality janky crap that nobody plays. Yeah, that's reeeeeeal notable right there. In fact, it seems notability has nothing to do with these sections and editors are just listing their favorite cards rather than using reliable NPOV sources. Am I wrong, or should I go ahead and remove these sections? --EvilZak 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Braid of Fire was probably listed off the spoiler, before we had some real-world data. Feel free to clean the sections up (especially if you're willing to verify their notability via other sources), but don't remove them entirely. Sets are notable for their cards, and it would be a shame if for example, the Legends page didn't discuss game-warping cards like Mana Drain. -- Norvy (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Added Dragonstorm to notable cards as it was in the '06 World Champion deck. Just remove it if you think it doesnt have a place. Perhaps a link to Makahito Mihara's deck? -- Vallas (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2007
I have to agree with EvilZak - these sections are so full of unverfied, uncited claims which are often poorly written and from a completely non-neutral POV. I suggest that "notable cards" should only be listed if
  • an article which describes them as such, or which discusses the card in depth, can be found
  • it was a heavily previewed card (although I'm not suggesting every card previewed is "notable", just stuff like Damnation or Akroma, Angel of Fury)
  • the card does something which hadn't been seen in the game before e.g. Lightning Storm having an activated ability on an instant (still, a source should be found describing this sort of thing)
If anyone has any other criteria they think could apply, please list them here, or contradict mine - I'm probably going to start working on removing all those which don't satisfy these later today, working from most recent set backwards. QmunkE 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've started re-listing the "notable cards" sections at User:QmunkE/Sandbox - feel free to lend a hand here. I'll move them across a couple of blocks at a time when I'm satisfied they are appropriately sourced. QmunkE 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a general observation, but using sources that rely on selling the cards for income is shaky, at best, for secondary sources. That includes the original producer as well as the secondary market. If at all possible such a source should be review/information based site or publication. — J Greb 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd prefer to see such sections deleted as being non-encyclopedic. --Khaim 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. I can see how short card lists can be used in article as an example of the block/expansion's theme and mechanics, very short in the cases of the block and the initial block expansion. I can also see such lists as presented by a reliable, verifiable secondary source. I don't think the articles though are the place to find a checklist of all cards. — J Greb 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up on copyright violations

Just a heads up to you guys regarding the Ravnica page. Large sections of the text are either a copy/paste or a slightly reworded copydump from the following copyrighted pages.

On all other fronts, keep up the good work! -- saberwyn 10:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTGCard template.

Since this seems to be the official place to drop off random templates... since I notice lots of the Set articles link to various cards, I created the {{mtgcard}} template for fast & easy Gatherer links. Less chance of a random typo, and if WotC changes the website in the future, there won't be a ton of repairs to do, just one.

It's pretty self-explanatory, as it's ruthlessly ripped off the {{google}} template; {{mtgcard|Mind's Desire}} will yield Mind's Desire. SnowFire 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article requires serious rewrite

This article needs a serious rewrite from people with knowledge about the subject - --Charlesknight 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creature articles

Seeing as some creatures eg slivers are so popular and talked about. Why don't we create separate articles for them? Who here thinks we should make a sliver article? Culverin? Talk 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Players

I have begun work on articles for pro players, in accordance to guidelines on biographies for competitors. I added an infobox for us to use when adding a new player. Since the easiest source of information is the pro cards, I used similar fields as found on the back of said cards. However, there is potential for more data such as notable decks. Shadowin 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFD/R notification

This message is to notify you that a stub template that is associated with this WikiProjet ({{mtgstub}}) is up for renaming at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other aspects of MTG besides sets...

Ok, I've taken a hatchet to the project page, and archived the talk page. Now that things are simpler, let's talk about other aspects of the project besides the sets.

Specifically, I think we need to set guidelines for what kind of information we want in pro players pages, as well as MTG fiction pages, such as Lim-Dûl. Who deserves their own page, and who gets stuck in a list like Magic: The Gathering characters: L? -- Norvy (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (edited by deadbraincell)

[edit] Magic Card

I think we should have an article (or a section of the main article) dealing with the front of a Magic card. I think it would make sense for a person who doesn't play the game to read something that tells what each part of the card means, rather than looking at the cards and trying to process all that information at once (it is a lot). Maybe we could use Storm Crow or Angelic Page or Birds of Paradise to illustrate (using Flying as a simple, understandable concept). --Insane 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves its own article, but perhaps at Magic: The Gathering rules? -- Norvy (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic: The Wiki

Hello all. I'd like to introduce my new project, Magic: The Wiki. Magic: The Wiki is a new service for players and collectors designed to catalog as much MTG data as possible, in a single location.

The goal of the wiki is to have an article for every card, set, and general deck ideas, as well as some basic articles on the game and strategy (which overlap somewhat with the articles here, but are provided on Magic: The Wiki for completeness). I'm still fairly new to the idea of wikis, and so any guidance/comments/criticism/badmouthing will be appreciated.

Right now, since it was started only about 3 days ago, it has very little content. I'm still learning things about wiki structure and organization, and I'm trying to use that to generate templates and other functional stuff. It also has very few articles, for obvious reasons.

So yeh, that's my new project, I'm interested in what everyone else here thinks! AbstractApproach 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to step on your toes, but MTGSalvation.com already hosts a Magic wiki we are hoping to make comprehensive. It's about a year old, though it's only been public eight or ten months. Rather than split our efforts, why not come help us out there? The site is http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Main_Page, for you or anyone else interested. 66.159.195.177 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Talk Member Box Template

Why isn't there a template for boxes showing you're a member of the project? Cooljeanius 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dup articles?

I was looking at Category:Magic: The Gathering characters and wondering why each letter seems to have entries

I looked at the 'A's and they look very similar. Is there a reason other than history why there are 2 articles (for each letter of the alphabet)? RJFJR 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. Unfortunately, it was a cut and paste move, so it's going to need to be repaired. I've already asked for an admin's attention[1]. -- Norvy (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Incidentally, the preferred title would be List of characters in Magic: The Gathering: A (cf. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists)#Styles - preferences). Once I've merged the histories, I'll move the titles to those pages unless that causes some consternation here. Kyle Barbour 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Kyle Barbour 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed that you seem to be missing a front page for these lists, as well as a connecting template (series box), so I created {{MTG characters}} and List of characters in Magic: The Gathering. Not necessarily the best looking at the moment, but it'll work until someone wants to pretty them up. Attached to them in Category:Lists of characters in Magic: The Gathering, which I'll put together soon. Kyle Barbour 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Kyle Barbour 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the cut and paste, and nice job Kyle Deadbraincell 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries, and thank you! Kyle Barbour 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ravinca

Ravnica just got deleted. Considering the state of that article and the others on this project, I think a lot of them will follow suit. Which sucks. Obviously we can argue, but will it do any good? (not rhetorical, please answer) - --Deadbraincell 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't deleted, it was temporarily redirected. But I think the redirector had a point re: the article being poorly sourced. We really need to hash out some fiction guidelines. Any suggestions, please fire away. -- Norvy (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Ravnica, because it was completely in-universe and unattributed.

It's important to remember that we need commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject to have any sort of article, and that goes double for fictional things. This unfortunately means that it's going to be very difficult to have articles on many of the fictional characters, places, and things in MTG; for those titles that can't sustain an article, I'd recommend redirecting somewhere related or informative (for example, Mishra could point to the Antiquities article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable cards, and set merges.

It seems that there was a very silly edit war lately over the "Notable cards" sections in the Magic set articles (see WP:ANI#Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards). Now, frankly, most of the spinoff MTG articles need more references, but something like "notable cards" clearly requires sources a lot more. This seems as good a place as any to move the debate.

I for one would be in favor of sticking a big warning in comments on top of every notable card section requiring a source for any additions, or else be reverted on sight. Short lists are better, anyway; a razor edge pointing out the three cards that were significant from the set is better than a meandering 9 cards. Anyway, one problem before was that what exactly a notable card was fluffy. I'd like to propose 6 criteria that I think should capture pretty much all the notable cards:

  • Tournament usage: The card made a major impact on tournaments, appearing in multiple winning decks or being the centerpiece of a powerful combo deck. Getting Restricted or Banned a plus, as is use across formats. Ex: Armageddon, Burning Wish, Mind's Desire, Umezawa's Jitte.
  • Price / Popularity: Cards that proved very popular (and maybe even saw a splash of tourney play), whether through marketing hype or casual usage or whatever. Ex: Juzam Dijinn, Sliver Queen, Reya Dawnbringer (MTGO only).
  • Out of game Reference: Cards that make direct and blatant reference to outside the MTG setting, or have major origin stories from outside. The biggest examples here are Invitational cards. Ex: Pheldagariff, Maro, Avalanche Riders.
  • Flavor / Plot: Cards that represent really huge plot events. I personally think that the "plot" to MTG is completely horrible, but that's neither here nor there. Random legends don't count even if they're in the story (like Konda, I guess? Like I said, I'm not a story expert); this should only apply to major protagonists if the only argument is flavor. Ex: Blind Seer, Gerrard Capashen, Mirari.
  • Pioneers: Cards that did something weird the first time or something really, really unique. Ex: Chaos Orb, Word of Command, Sharhazad, Jester's Cap, Piracy. Yes, that means Alpha will have a lot of notable cards.
  • Rules breakage: Cards that single-handedly prompted errata of the rules or else otherwise had major rules problems. Ex: Waylay, Mindslaver.

Of these, the bottom 4 should be fairly containable with a well-defined list of what would qualify. The top 2 I expect to be contentious with people putting the card that was a hero in their own kitchen table playgroup up there with a reference in passing at SCG, so those probably would require the most careful scrutiny. A truly massively notable tourney card probably has an article somewhere devoted entirely to bemoaning is brokenness or praising its versatility. There's tons of Magic content just at the main WotC site (which has independent columnists, so it's a bit more trustworthy than the average corporate site) and at SCG, easily searchable by Google, so sourcing should not be a problem. (A Man in Black seems to not favor using WotC sources, though I'm not sure I agree with that; marketing hype might not be overuseful, but they have a lot of independent columnists, banned/restricted lists, and the tournament reports are somewhat reliable.)

Also, as a side issue... is there any interest in doing set merges? I still think that Alpha/Beta/Unlimited can be profitably merged with no loss of information into "Limited Edition." That article will simply approach a reasonable size, as opposed to being small and malnourished like the other articles. For that matter, this would be a bigger project, but most set articles could be merged into block articles - as in, one article on Mirage block, one on Ravnica, etc. Thanks to the software now supporting anchored redirects, Planar Chaos could jump straight to the PC section of a Time Spiral block article, for instance. (Beats me what to do with Arabian Nights - Fallen Empires, though. I suppose we can leave that issue for later, should others agree merge via blocks to be reasonable).

There are various benefits from combining short articles, like it being easier to monitor for vandalism and maintain quality along with less clicking. WP:INT has more on this. SnowFire 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Some observations and comments:
  • Tournament usage sounds like a good ground work for a list if it is in an article on the tournaments. There you have a reason to note favored themes and cards among, say, the quarter-finalists. (I'm making an assumption that "tournaments" refers to the culminations event of the various circuits, not all tournaments.)
  • Price invites comments about what Wiki is not. Simply, it's an encyclopedia, not a pricing guide.
  • Pioneers makes sense it the article or section is referring to game mechanics. But that fells more like a 2 card list: early example and relatively current example.
  • Rule-breakers and -benders are good if the section is addressing the evolution of the game. That type of section though does need reliable sources for why/how WotC responded to the use/abuse of the cards.
  • IIUC about AMiB's concerns, and I share some of them, relying solely on WotC/Hasbro sites, or on those and sources that are organs for card shops, is a problem. The bar is supposed to be reliable, independent, and verifiable. If a source has some vested interest in something being notable, the source becomes suspect. The best solution would be to find a source that is not beholden to WotC/Hasbro or a store that has presented a list of notable cards and go from there. Personally I don't think that WotC is toxic (stores on the other hand are), but if needs a supplementary source.
As far as merging articles goes. The general rule of thumb is to try and get as big a chunk as reasonable to start with. If that is overly long, then separate it. I think you make a good point about separating the sets by block, that's a natural break point and there should be enough information for good sized (30k-50k range) articles. A few suggestions though:
  • The core set seems to have a natural break between Unlimited and Revised since revised started pulling from expansions.
  • I would be tempted to lump the first 5 expansions and Homelands in one article ("Stand alone expansions" as a possible page title).
  • If the articles are or become overly large, you may want to look at overview articles (an example would be Robin (comics)) based on the core expansion for the block and short blurbs and "main" pointers to the other two sets.
  • Using the combined articles could also create a situation where templates like {{spoiler-solicitation}} and/or {{future comic}} are needed.
- J Greb 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Very simple solution to this problem: people who play Magic and edit Wikipedia will keep the Notable Cards list in proper condition - if someone puts a card in a list that doesn't belong, it'll be removed by someone else. Consensus. Scumbag 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Scumbag: Yeah, well, if they're in "proper" condition, they should be easy to source, right? I am not all that much into the Sets project and thus did not feel like picking a fight like AMiB did; if I started cleaning out entries, I'd likely get reverted (just like AMiB was) and have to start debating the person over the topic. So I'd be careful about saying "just because it's here now means consensus agrees." Why not set out strong guidelines on this general page so that there aren't 30 different small debates?
That said, yes, no hurry on deleting the old notable cards. But I'd hope that we put at least some effort into sourcing this. If anything is left unsourced a few months from now and another editor starts removing everything unsourced, it'll be a lot harder to defend- we've been warned, so let's get to work. SnowFire 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
J Greb: Interesting comments. As for price, I didn't mean to always mention price in the article, at least not always, but I do think that price could serve as a good reference because they're quantifiable and measurable. If somebody wanders by and says that, say, Sasaya, Orochi Ascendent is the Bee's Knees at their games and super-popular, what's to dispute them? They can probably even cite a random SCG article that mentioned the card in passing. However, a price around a dollar would be a decent counterindicator. Cards that are authentically casually popular (like, say, Circu, Dimir Lobotomist) tend to sell for pretty decent prices due to a driven up demand, and to qualify as a "notable card" it should be really popular. SnowFire 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, price can be used to indicate that a card was popular at a given point in time. But the prices can change, as deck styles change, as the DCI bans or restricts cards, even as a block is released. Notability shouldn't be tied to that. IT also shouldn't be based on an arbitrary threshold such as $X for a common, $Y for an uncommon, and $Z for a rare.
Also, cites about notability should deal strongly with the card in question, not just mentioned them in passing. And "our group finds..." fails miserably as a verifiable source.
The latter, like Scumbag's suggestion, also runs a foul of the Wiki stance against original research. We're not supposed to create the information, just compile it. — J Greb 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not creating any information - we are compiling it. I think the very nature of "Can we do it this way? No, can we do it this way? No, can we do it this way?" shows the inherent folly in this course of action. Can you disprove the notion that Magic players here can effectively self-police what gets added? The only time the section(s) in question shift dramatically is when a set is new (which inevitably calms down), or when a overzealous Wikipedian comes along and persumes to know more than the ones maintaining the article. Scumbag 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, these won't be lists. Encyclopedia-style prose tends to be more informative, useful, and better-looking than bulleted lists of factoids. That's jumping ahead a step, though.

First, we need to find references for these articles. Not just for the notable cards, but for the whole article. Right now, these articles apparently fail WP:N miserably. I know they don't (hell, I can think of at least three magazines, two of which would pass WP:ATT, that are or once we devoted almost entirely to MTG), but we do need the references.

Once we have those, we can look at them and take a look at what specific cards they took note of (hence, notability), and describe them as appropriate in the context of talking about the set as a whole, instead of making a separate grab-bag card list.

I think merging the blocks is a good idea, but it's a secondary concern to this main point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone but you is bringing up WP:N. Just because they're currently unsourced is no reason to think they're non-notable. By the way, mtg.com is probably the largest site for such sources, although probably not for such things as notable cards (which are generally marketing ploys). The "making of" type articles should be good references, as should the flavor stuff. --Khaim 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that worrying about which cards are notable within the set is a little silly when we're not even justifying notability for the sets as a whole. We need to do that first, and that should be a head start on figuring out which cards are notable.
mtg.com is a primary source, and should probably be avoided as much as possible. Making of stuff is probably okay, but we shouldn't ever take its word that such-and-such thing or event is important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That I can agree with. --Khaim 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with "avoiding mtg.com as much as possible." Unfortunately, relevant out of universe information like development teams and design influences pretty much have to come from there. Obviously critical reception shouldn't come from there or anything similar, but a lot of "nuts and bolts" factual type information where there'd be no reason to shade the truth works just fine from there. Also, as for notable cards, normally I agree with prose... but that kind of section by nature seems suited for a list, as it calls out what is and what isn't a card much more clearly.
Also, Khaim, any thoughts on the merge suggestion? I know you opposed the idea when I raised it awhile back on Talk:Unlimited (Magic: The Gathering)... SnowFire 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with the "nuts and bolts" stuff may be the unavoidable place where WotC/Hasbro is the main or only source. It would still be preferable to have a secondary source, such as an outside magazine/site conducted interview with developers, but we have to start with what we have. Just keeping sales material out. — J Greb 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variant Magic: The Gathering formats

I've had some concerns expressed about this page, and while I don't think I agree with them entirely, I do feel the page needs some work to bring it up to snuff. Can anybody direct me to magazine articles on Magic Variants, or any other sources? I do think wizards.com is a good source (they are not quite a primary source, since they are distinct from the actual source, which is the cards themselves, what they are is a self-published source, which makes this a question more of WP:AUTO than anything else, but others would be appreciated. Mister.Manticore 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The publisher is not a source distinct from the works it publishes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Which does not mean they cannot be used, it just means it's important to use them carefully. Sorry, but while I can understand concerns that there might be some bias, if you don't accept that Wizards is itself is capable of relating any information at all to be used about their products, there's just going to be a unresolvable conflict here. Oh, and I meant WP:SPS earlier. Sorry, used the wrong link. My bad. Mister.Manticore 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not an unreliable source, just a source that can't be used to establish importance. Clearly, a variant officially endorsed by WOTC is better than one not endorsed at all, but it doesn't mean that any of the variants are notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it does establish importance a lot better than many other site. Wizards.com's magic section is a professionally edited and produced news source for the Magic World. They don't just let anybody contribute, they have a strong incentive not to make things up, and to present valid and interesting information to folks, but they don't need to scrape the bottom of the barrel. So, while they're not say, the New York Times, they're also not say, the National Inquirer or the average personal blog. There may be some individual cases I could imagine a conflict, or concern, in what information they related, but in terms of establishing the importance of a subject, given that Magic itself is unquestionably notable, if Wizards covers some aspect of Magic, whether it be on their website or a press-release or something else, I'd say that would establish the validity of covering it. Mister.Manticore 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be used? Not just a reference to policy, or an essay or guideline, but an articulation of an actual problem, preferably one that relates to this subject. Mister.Manticore 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Base reason? WotC/Hasbro have a vested interest in the game and in making sure it sells. What they want notable about the game may not be what is notable about the game. It's akin to taking Microsoft as the major or only source of information on Vista.
While the publisher is a fair source, in lieu of secondary sources, if it is the only source, the article becomes suspect. Is it being used to "push" something? Is it being used to establish notability instead of explaining/dealing with something that is already notable?
— J Greb 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think we're on different pages here. I already recognize the concern that Wizards.com could be biased, and that having additional sources is a good thing, but I also think that they, like Microsoft.com have a high threshold of professionalism, as their vested interest is much the same as say, the New York Times has in being a source of the truth, not in merely selling something like the average low-rate blog hoping to make some bucks from banner ads. They want a site that provides content of use to their customers, not to cover anything under the sun. Thus I would have no inherent problem accepting that their coverage is a reliable source. In fact, I see quite a few cites to their own website at Microsoft, and who knows how many others exist on Wikipedia? Some of those are financial reports, which means they have a duty to tell the truth in those, but looking at other Microsoft pages I see that they are not. I really think your analogy is less than helpful. Could you relate it to this page more specifically? What would you think would satisfy whatever concerns you have with the page? (Assuming you have any, since you're a different person answering a question not directed at you, I have no idea where you actually stand). Mister.Manticore 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. And I am coming at it from a slightly different tact.
Looking at the article in question, I'm a little surprised that it got split off instead of just being a section of the main. To me there needs to be more than "WotC published rules" to justify splitting it off. IF that's all there is to work with, the article effectively reprints, reworded or not, what WotC published. If there were more, I guess "context" references is the best term for it, I'd be more comfortable with this. Something with the "whys" and impact of the variants. Are there sanctioned events for Vanguard or 2-Headed Giant? Do non-WotC sources have anything to say about Emperor? And so on.
That's more of a comfort level thing though. I realize that, even though Magic is extremely notable, the actual secondary and tertiary sources are few and far between. It is easier to frame out the articles based on the cards, licensed novels, and WotC pubs, but the there should be strides by the editors working on these articles to go beyond that. I've gotten the impression that one of the general goals of Wiki is to eventually get as many articles as possible to not only an encyclopaedic standard but to the "Good Article" standard. The latter rest strongly on secondary sourcing.
For the most part I don't endorse point blank removal, either by deletion or redirect, of an article attached to a Project without a reference to a Project derived consensus that can be pointed to as reason. But an editor who happens across an article that doesn't meet WP guidelines and standards has a right to voice his concerns and try to lift the article to those standards. Or at the very least make the Project and other editors aware the article needs help with the appropriate tags.
Sorry if I got onto a bit of a rant... — J Greb 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reason why it's not a section of the Magic: the Gathering article is simple. That article is huge. At some point, I decided to make this split (I think it was because somebody proposed deleting a page on one of the variants, which lead me to think, hmm, we could cover this more effectively on its own page). So, the reason was related to WP:SIZE, and I picked Variants because it seems a strong enough subject on its own. Take a look at chess variants, which though it does have its problems, is an indicator that the subject of variations from a standard game can support its own article. Maybe not as many as that article links off too, but that's a problem for another day. As for the main page, if anything, it needs more splitting. Different issue as well though. And yes, information about sanctioned (and unsanctioned if otherwise notable) events for Vanguard, 2-headed Giant, and the other variants would be nice things to add. If you know about or see any sources for them, feel free to add the content. Mister.Manticore 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And just so you know, while I don't mind either your concerns, or the original objector's, I do want to understand them clearly , so something can be done about them. Even if not by me, then hopefully by somebody else. And I have to admit, my interest in MTG is not in the competitive side of things, or even in the variants other than Momir basic. So I don't really pay much attention to them. Mister.Manticore 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's just better to omit marginal information than try to split it off into its own article. That said, I still think this could be pulled together, with the help of some merges, into an article on competitive MTG play. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Except, this information is not marginal, but fairly substantial. Just the fact that two (Multiplayer rules and Vanguard) are official rules is enough for their substance. Some of the others have their own tournaments at major conventions. There's no way this information wouldn't belong on the main article's page. But wait, that's fairly long. So the choice is, either cover these minimally on that page, or pull it off to another page. I choose the latter. Sure, the information itself may be slow working its way up to a good article, but the potential is there, and obvious to me. I'm not worried about it. Mister.Manticore 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of substantial parts of the game that don't need an article. (Upkeep? The draw phase order? The card types?) You're conflating "important to the game" (which I'm not really sure even 2HG is) with "important enough to need an article in a general purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, upkeep, draw phase, card types is already in Magic: The Gathering rules which I think is quite a valid article, and if it didn't exist, I would expect the description of all of these in the main article, the same as I expect the article on Chess (and the pieces) to explain how they move (and oh yes, there are individual articles on each of the pieces, as well as rules of chess), the article on Monopoly (game) to describe the play of the game (it even includes a depiction of the board!), Scrabble to describe its scoring system and letter distribution, Poker to tell me about bluffing, the various words used in the game and so forth. I think it's quite obvious these kinds of things are quite relevant to the various games, as they make for a much more effective understanding of the games in question. If you disagree, convince me not just why these pages should be changed, but all of the others just like it that I've mentioned. Heck, you'd also need to check sports too. See Category:Baseball rules. Since I see no substantial difference in any of those articles and what you're talking about now, I really think if you intend to pursue this subject further, you might want to seek a wider audience, as it's clear to me this issue doesn't just concern the one subject of Magic, but quite a broad range of material. I wouldn't recommend seeking deletion or removal of the material, I disagree strongly, I think it's highly important material but if that's the course of action you wish to pursue, you are going to have to address it to a broader audience. Mister.Manticore 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Each and every example there has rules description for context for other content, or is a century-plus-old game with numerous sources, all independent of each other, from which to draw commentary. They are dissimilar to this situation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by the context that exists on these other pages that doesn't exist on the relevant magic page? Direct examples would be most appreciated. Otherwise, I'd say there's such a gap in our apprehension of the situation that it may be impossible for us to resolve solely between us. It might be best to seek a third opinion or an RFC. It's not like we don't have common ground. If an article were made on almost any magic variant, I'd say it should be at most merged, and more than likely deleted. The only Magic variant I can see myself making an exception for right now is Vanguard, which as a separate product of its own is comparable to a card set. Mister.Manticore 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing Magic: the Gathering; rather, I'm criticizing Variant Magic: the Gathering formats, both as an article subsection and as a standalone article. It becomes very easy to get too far into detail on how to play a game and lose sight of what a game is. Look at Poker; while it's far from an ideal article, the bulk of the article is about how power was developed and its role in history, while not straying too far down the path of getting into the details of how to play. I feel it's the role of an encyclopedia to explain that poker is a game where hands of cards are dealt, then players bet on the strength of their hand while simultaneously trying to bluff opponents into mispredicting their hand's strength. (That's an awkward as hell sentence, but you get the idea, and Poker#Game play is about the place where things should be, IMO.) Scrabble, in its current form, is the wrong way to go. The bulk of the article is detailed descriptions of specific rules issues, and a large portion of the article describes intermediate and advanced strategy.
Comparing MTG to chess or baseball is a mistake. Each rule and strategy of either of the latter games has been the subject of a great deal of critical commentary, and not just from the perspective of informing the reader how to play the game (or play the game better). Not so with MTG, where the vast majority of the commentary coming from sources other than WOTC is intended to teach you how to play the game more successfully or promote the latest product.
It may be illustrative to look at the problems of the Pokémon Wikiproject, as we run into the same difficulty with the lack of suitable sources that are not how-to, promotional, or far below the typical bar for self-published/fansite content. There is a certain seductive quality to "Well, it's an important part of foo, and foo is important," but it ultimately leads to articles that are very difficult to improve to encyclopedic quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See, here's where we're obviously on different pages. I do not think you are criticizing Magic the Gathering. I do think you are criticizing this one page. I just don't concur with your conclusions. They don't seem supported to me, or even particularly meaningful. To put it another way, I think you may have something valuable to say, but you're not saying anything helpful to me in resolving your problem. You're just making objections without telling me what I can do to fix resolve them. Your counter-examples don't even illustrate your point very well, since they aren't quite right themselves.
To address your points in more specific detail. Poker indeed covers this history of the game. Gameplay is, however, the first section. It should not be removed. Beyond that, there's Poker strategy, a page on variants, List of poker variants(With a category at Category:Poker variants, a game play catergory at Category:Poker gameplay and terminology, and more. Did you realize these pages exist? What do you think about them? Heck, have you looked at Blackjack? I don't even see a history section on that page. Yet it's a Featured Article
I could do the same with Chess, and I actually do have some reasonable concerns with the way the Chess articles are handled. I think there are way too many chess openings. The subject of Chess openings I concur with deserving an article. But I don't think all of the openings are necessarily encyclopedia articles. Some are, but I do not think an article which merely describes the details of a set of moves is appropriate. A lot of them are nothing but a bunch of algebraic notation with remarks as to strategy. That is the kind of problem I have with those articles. If similar pages were made about Magic cards, I'd be troubled by them too. I have looked at chess variants as well, and I also have some concerns about them, but I think the openings are more obviously a problem.
Now, certainly, I would say that Chess has a more august body of scholarly review than Magic does. It's been around a lot longer, reaches more people. No surprise there. I'm still troubled by those chess openings I mentioned. Same with variants. However, if you got the idea that they should be deleted wholesale, I would disagree with you strongly. While every specific detail isn't necessarily a real article, the subject itself is another story. Since I see no fundamental difference between Variants of Magic or Variants of Chess, or Poker, or any other sport, I just don't see your problem. Certainly, not every variant should have a page, or even be mentioned on this article, but I've already said I concur with that. Sure, sources may be problematic. They're not impossible though. People do write about Magic, Wizards runs an informational site that I consider quite reputable. They don't just put out press releases, but provide on-going, professional coverage of their sport. It's actually in their best interest to provide only reasonable, accurate, and otherwise good content. I don't know if you read Wizards.com's magic section regularly, but if you don't, I suggest you do, and see what it's like. Sure, if there was some conflict between Wizard's pages and somebody else criticizing their products, it'd be an issue to consider, but that is something that'll have to be handled when and if it occurs.
So anyway, if you have any specific concerns about this page, I'll try to address them, but if you're still stuck on the idea that the subject itself isn't encyclopedic, we've reached a fundamental impasse. I'm really just repeating myself here. I'll gladly go to RFC or third opinion if you want, but other than that, I don't know what to do. Mister.Manticore 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of problematic chess and baseball and poker articles, to be sure. But Poker strategy, while not at all a good article, could easily be improved from historical treatments on poker. There's evolution of strategy, origins of strategies, etc. (List of poker variants is dissimilar to this article; there's no one main way of playing poker and then a bunch of lesser variations, and that less-than-great article still manages to focus on the core.) Much the same content that you'd find on chess strategy, if in lesser quanities.
Well, the solution I propose is that we don't make pages like this one, pretty much. I think this page, in this form, is irreparable because the sources are ultimately going to consist of guides to playing the game or promotional material, and variants are going to be mentioned in guides to playing those variants or bland overviews in the context of larger discussions. I think if we rebuilt this by incorporating it into a single article on tournment play, including the variations of tournament play, it could easily be an excellent article (Type 2, after all, is a significant variant.) That would be a total rewrite, however, with a significant focus shift, but in my view it's necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, just to be clear, your objection is to the subject of the page, not the content? In that case, I've done my best to explain why I think the subject is reasonable to keep. You don't agree. And while I do concur with you that information regarding the various tournaments involving the variants is information worthy to include (in fact, I've added what I was able to source to the page), you still seem to have some objection. As far as I'm concerned, we have reached an impasse. Do you want to do RFC or VP, or 3rd opinion, or go to an AfD or what? Mister.Manticore 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This page needs a rewrite; I just don't know what to rewrite it into. Right now, it's about a handful of house rulesets, sort of slapped together, with no references that aren't guides to playing a format or guides to doing a better job at playing a format. It's lacking in a coherent subject, since it excludes the very most noteworthy variants (e.g. the main tournament formats like Legacy/Vintage/whatever-type-2's-name-is/Block, Magic: Online itself), while including a bunch of weird house rules. Should we let those major variants dominate the article, find some common criterion these variations of the game share (and continue to exclude the currently-excluded formats), or merge this into a not-yet-made umbrella article on tournament play, or some other thing? (Of the four, I prefer the third.)
I want to discuss with you what subject of the article should be, and what, if any, content should be salvaged from this version. I don't think we currently have a disagreement; I think we have a lack of communication of key points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now that've explictly listed some specific concerns I can address them. I do concur the page needs improvement, perhaps a near-complete rewrite. But it's not about house rulesets, or at least, it shouldn't be. But rather, established variants with real substance. As I've said before, that is something I consider an acceptable requirement to be on the page. Second, I don't understand your problem with the sources. Most articles that relate to Magic are going to cover playing the game as their primary focus. That doesn't mean they don't present other facts in a reliable fashion. Third, the tournament formats such as Legacy, Vintage, Block, are not what I would call variants as is meant by the page, but if you feel it's reasonable to include them and less confusing, I don't object inherently. I do note, though, they are already covered at Magic_the_gathering#Organized_play and Duelists' Convocation International. I think it would be more reasonable to go with an introduction that covers that subject as being distinct from the subject of this article, and directs folks back there, rather than merge it all together. And no, while Magic Online is an alternative means of play, and it offers variants, which I've tried to cover, it's not itself a variant. It should be mentioned, but it's got its own page. Mister.Manticore 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, if your problem is with the contents, we can discuss that, as long as you're not arguing the subject itself isn't coverable. Certainly, aspects of it might be, there are house rules and such that don't warrant coverage. Absolutely. But there are aspects of almost any subject that are like that. Mister.Manticore 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sources saying "This is how you play the game" are the least useful for an encyclopedia, because the only analysis they tend to offer is advice. All they allow us to do is blandly note that this game exists and this is how you play it, and that the only claim of importance is that someone bothered to write an article about how to play. This is a very weak claim of importance.
Here's an idea. Why not split this and redirect it back to Magic: the Gathering? Put the formats people play in tournaments in an article on tournament play (Magic: the Gathering tournaments or some other name that doesn't exclude discussing unofficial tournaments, made from a merger of the DCI article and Magic: the Gathering#Organized play plus a dash of what's here, seems like a good article idea), merge the MTGO-only formats to the MTGO article, and...um. I guess I just want to remerge this and split Magic: the Gathering somewhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but here's something you don't seem to realize. Several of the sources also provide information on the origins of the variant. For example, 5-color, Reject Rare Draft's origins, or Peasant Magic. Sure, that content was missing from the page, but I've since added it in. I also added that Peasant and 5-color hold tournaments at Gencon. It may be minimal now, but what you seem to be asking for is something that can be provided.
And while I can see some benefit in having a page on tournaments, possibly including some variants, you don't have to play a variant in a tournament. Thus coverage of them ought to be independent of that subject. And ultimately, any MTGO variant could be played offline, in fact, all but one of them did originate from offline content, and even that is a subset of a variant. So, that's why I think having a separate page for variants is the better way to present the information. I'd be comfortable leaving it in the main article, but as I said earlier, it's rather large. So it's reached the point where it's worth looking at what can be separated. This, I think is one of the more easily covered ones. But if you still have doubts as to even merging it back into the main article, well, there we disagree. Mister.Manticore 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, every tournament I've been to was a variant on the rules, if only that they used a banned/restricted list and often banned a number of sets. If those aren't variants, why is Highlander a variant? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Momir Basic (as well as many of the MTGO Vanguards and other bits of randomness) are only possible on MTGO. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Banned and restricted lists do not, as I see it, constitute a variant, as they don't alter the rules of the game, merely change the available card pool. And as far as I know those lists are based on individual cards, not concepts to alter the game as played, so as such, that's not really what's meant by variants. So, not an issue for this page, as it's a diferent subject. If you play in a tournament which bans instants, that would be a variant in this list. If it banned an instant, or a dozen of them, then it's not. Same with Highlander. It doesn't have a banned list. It changes the rule of the game from 4 max of each card in the deck to 1. This is not to say a variant can't ban cards, 5-color does, but its being a variant is seperate from that issue. Mister.Manticore 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be your POV, based on no sources whatsoever. I think we run the risk of pushing a baseless, preconcieved idea what a "variant" is, given the lack of sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would say you are the one pushing your POV based on no sources at all, with a personal concept of what a variant is without even the pretense of a source. No usage I have seen supports the concept that a B&R list is a variant, whereas I can point to web-page after web-page describing variants in various forms. I can even point you to the Comprehensive rules that describe the Multiplayer versions as variants. Exactly what sources do you have to support your conceptualization of this subject? Mister.Manticore 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I want to content that doesn't demonstrate importance through the existence of multiple, non-trivial references. The fact that there are no references lead to issues like personal definitions of "variant". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, read the page. There are references, ones which are quite adequate for this subject. You're the one who is making an objection based not on references, but what I see is a mistaken comprehension over what a variant actually is. Mister.Manticore 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On what are you basing your definition of "variant"? And the references are all WOTC or stores that sell MTG, save for one reference to Pojo (which even the Pokémon Wikiproject has rejected as being waaaay too flakey.) :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My concept is based on the usage of Wizards, Starcitygames, Pojo, MTGSalvation, and every other source that might cover the subject I know about. This usage is also consistent with the usages I have seen regarding other games as well, whether they be chess or monopoly. I suppose it's possible to confuse the subjects, as they are both occasionally called format, but Vintage/Legacy/Extended/Block Constructed/Standard are not referred to as variants by anybody I know about. If you have any sources that say otherwise, I'd probably say it was their mistake. But since you have't produced any sources, I guess I'm just left with saying I think it is you who are confused. Mister.Manticore 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is still only sourced to WOTC, stores that sell MTG, or fansites that aren't reliable sources. :/ We're still stuck on WP:N. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
So what? They produce a professional website providing informative content for their players. They have the same need to stick with the truth that say, the NYT does. If they don't, they risk losing customers. (and hey, did you know that the Times takes advertisements...does this make them less reliable than Consumer Reports? I wouldn't say so). If you want to look for others go ahead, Scrye, Inquest, and probably some books on Magic the Gathering may have what you want, that'd be great to add but I just don't understand this objection to using WOTC. Especially not to define variants. I'm not opposed to using other sites or sources to say "This Variant is notable enough to include" but I also think Wizards.com is a reasonable thing to use. If you want to convince me otherwise, tell me why, using actual pages and information directly related to this situation, not references to policies and essays that more than likely never considered the circumstances involved here at all. Otherwise, let's go to a third party or an RFC. Mister.Manticore 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And Momir basic is actually doable IRL. All you need is gather each creature at the given mana cost and randomly shuffle them together. That would be awkward, at the least, the logistics of it would be difficult, but it is very doable. It's a convenience issue, no more. Same with the rest of the Avatars. Mister.Manticore 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"So impractical in RL that nobody has ever done it" = "MTGO only." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have done it, even before Momir came out, though in a limited fashion (we didn't have every creature, but then, neither does MTGO). 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article on Proxy cards

Hi folks, I wrote a lot on the article on proxy cards (being a small stub before). I think this article would benefit from a review by a second person, as my practical experience with this subject is rather limited (never been to a tournament, never seen others play with proxies). The article is not mtg-specific, and I think a cross-game article is sufficient for this subject. However, there is a strong mtg-relevance. I hope this is a good place for this recruiting request? At least I imagine some experts around here ;) --Lhead 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Magic%7E_The_Gathering_5295.html"