Talk:Future Sight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Timeshifted?

I thought only Time Spiral and Planar Chaos would have Timeshifted cards -- Future Sight is the expansion that won't have them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

    • The srticle used as a source states that all three sets have Timeshifted cards, but in PC and FS, these are "normal" timeshifts with TS ahving the funky purple ones. I say leave it until proven otherwise by a more recent source. -- saberwyn 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Just to make sure this is cleared up, FS did in fact contain timeshifted ("futureshifted") cards with a futuristic border) Darkelfpoet 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme Decks

The article states that there will be two blue/red preconstructed decks. Is that a typo, and can somebody provide a link to the pics? Until there's a link, I'm deleting the statement.--XenoGeno 7:56, February 22, 2007 (UTC)

We need to post something about the revealed Decks. 160.7.145.247 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)YeoungBraxx

There is an external link to the decks. 82.3.48.129 April 11, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme Decks

Some German scans of the Theme Decks are here. Assuming they are real. Not good with wikipedia, so someone else do something about it please. Here: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.52.137 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notable Cards sources

I noticed that only one of the seven listed notable cards are sourced. Would whoever posted the other six notable cards please source them, so that other editors will be able to check the credibility of your sources? Thank you. Lifebaka 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Cards still missing sources

I have tagged the Notable Cards section of this page with the unreferenced template. The section completely lacks sources to back up the claims it makes. I am fully in favor of continuing the practice of having a Notable Cards section in each Magic set article, but these cards should be sourced. Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering for good sources to use in this section. Should suitable sources not be found in four days (before Monday Eastern Standard Time), I will edit the section with all new, sourced notable cards. And they probably won't be any good.--Lifebaka 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


You cannot reference a card for whether it is good or not. Linking to the card is reference enough. What possible reference exists that can be used to describe whether a card is notable or not? 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest using Magic Arcana or Magic Card of the Day articles. However, the set will need a little more time before a real set of notable cards can be compiled. Being it as it is that the set is being released today, a true list of 'notable' cards cannot yet be created. Change previous limit to Monday after next (May 14th).
I am going and adding some references for a few of the cards now, as well.--Lifebaka 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, people, PUT REFERENCES ON YOUR NOTABLE CARDS. I will remove every "notable card" that is added without a source. And I'm not even the most anal about this stuff. Thank you. --Lifebaka 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lifebaka - you must be related to A Man In Black. All he does is remove notable cards. He never tries to improve the article or source information, just wants to remove and vadalize it. --Mjrmtg 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

how about tarmagoyf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmy4321 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Timeshifted Card Frame Design to bottom of article

I moved the section of Future Sight about the timeshifted card frame design to the bottom of the article because it is a special feature of Future Sight. Most sets do not have differences in design like Future Sight does, and I feel that inserting the section about this new frame design into the middle of the order of sections that is used in most MTG set articles breaks consistency (of course, I have yet to check if there is consistency yet, so...). I have also retitled it from Redesign, as I feel that was a horrible name, and completely nondescriptive of the subject of the section.--Lifebaka 23:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline section, anyone?

Does anyone have the Future Sight novel? We could really use a Storyline section for this article, and I know the book is out already. I'm going to go summarize the summary on the Future Sight product page, but I'd feel better if we have a better version up than that. Thanks everyone.--Lifebaka 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the novel, and did my best to improve the section. Also, I added some links. -- "Targeter" 0:40, 29 June 2007 (CET)

[edit] State of the article

Before I created an account my ip was 82.3.48.129 and you can look back into the history and see the amount of hours I put into the article, including almost all of the references. Brackets are not needed on any part of the article, if you structure a sentence correctly there is never a need to use them. The theme decks were all explained via one exteranl link, before they were split and currently look poor. I have improved on other articles and wish to carry on doing so. Forget the notable card section as that issue seems like its never going to be solved. I have every intention to get it back up to scratch. --Rohrecall 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym FutureSight C.gif

Image:Exp sym FutureSight C.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable cards section

I have re-added the Notable cards secton mostly as a comment after User:A Man In Black removed it. Although he has brought up very good reasons that we should discourage these sections in the past, I feel that they add to an article. However, I agree that these sections should be left out unless good sources can be found for them. Therefore, sources should be found for any entries that are to become visible parts of the article. I shall look for some later next week, and I encourage other editors to do the same. If such sources cannot be found within a week or so, the section should be cut completely. Thank you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very good ref; it's WOTC saying on their official site that such-and-such aspect of their Brand New Product is one that Consumers Should Get Really Excited About. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm, that item was referenced to InQuest Gamer, not WOTC. —Cryptic 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Fix't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] notable cards

tarmagoyf has seen play in many pro decks I think it is worth noting

See above. If it's not sourced, it shouldn't go here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since once again we need to go over this: Cards added to the Notable Cards section need sources. Sources separate from WotC, too. The project cannot accept this sort of information based on what you think. We've got policy that says no original research; failing to provide a reliable source to verify that this card is indeed notable and using only your own reasoning is original research in Wikipedia's book. If anyone has problems with this, I suggest they either find sources for the cards they want to add or take up changes to the policies at the relevant talk pages (or wikien-l, where it's currently being discussed ). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)