User talk:Rohrecall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notable Cards

Hey, I noticed your comment about being frustrated, and I just want to offer some support. I know it's a bit annoying for AMIB to be summarily removing the sections without what seems to me to be a lot of thought on his card, or consideration of whether there are cards which are notable for some reason that's easy to establish. While it's certainly a concern that many of the notable card sections were full of unsourced material, I don't think the problem was quite that much. It's a low-level problem, but he's treating it as if it were a 10 out of 10 on the scale. Still, his actions aren't that bad either. He's not being uncivil, and there's certainly a nugget of validity to the concern. As I see it, it's easy enough to find cards that are notable for some reason or another in the various sets. I just wish he didn't have such a blind opposition to use of Wizards.com. His position is one of it being unacceptable at all, without considering the nature of the subject. Or the relevant policy pages. Not good for improving the pages when what is really one of the best sources is excluded. Oh well, don't let it get you down, just contribute as you can. FrozenPurpleCube 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I know he is doing what he feels is correct but I really do feel there is a better way to go about things. Anyway I have taken it upon myself to start from the beginning and work my way forward. Alpha is pretty much uptodate and as good as its going to be. My only concern especially for the older sets is sourced info on the net is very limited apart from the official site. Hopefully he will come around and we can get all the articles upto scratch. Rohrecall 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, for the older stuff, it's all in Magazines, which means well, there's probably not a lot of people with access to them. I'm sure there's somebody with an archive of the Duelist, Scrye, Inquest, etc, but I'm not one of them. Oh, and one criteria for marking a card might be whether or not there was a Vanguard version of it, or an MTGO avatar. FrozenPurpleCube 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To me personally that isn't what a notable card is, maybe the definition of the word notable is the reason for all this. In Homelands, which is regarded as a very weak set only a few cards were useable and tournament worthy one being Serrated Arrows. This is mentioned on the official site coverage, they even admit that the set was weak. But I'm unable to use the site as a source 9accrdoing to AMIB yet the set is from 1995 and the only place the info exists is there. Scans of magazines are not allowed so its going to be very tricky if we can't use the official site. Rohrecall 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as it goes, there's no reason you can't use scans of magazines to show something to another editor, as long as you don't try to put it on Wikipedia. As for what's a notable card or not, I'm not sure, I don't focus on tournament play so much, myself, but I don't object to using that as a criteria either. Just as part of the included, not as an exclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much into the tournament scene myself apart from reading up on the events. My other concern is it states on the talk page that starcitygames.com is a place to get info from, yet they sell card singles and could be biased to sell their own priced cards. So what he suggests isn't plausable either. Like you said though if we stick at it, all will be well :) Rohrecall 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A notable card is a card that has been noted in a reliable source (meaning, an independent publication with editorial control or peer review). Notable is not the same as important or unique or interesting. Saga came out well after the internet was well established, so you can probably plumb the archives of some of the older MTG sites for a start. Usenet, while not a source on its own, may be a good place to start looking for sites that may have Saga coverage in their archives; see what sites people were talking about around the release of Saga.

In the meantime, I've userfied the Urza's Saga list for you here. If you find sources for anything on that list, please feel tree to add it to Urza's Saga, but not before, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I will get on it myself tomorrow and see if someone else can put some input into it too. At least Alpha, Beta and Unlimited are better, might not be perfect but better than they were. Rohrecall 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're on exactly the right track with the ABU articles. Maybe you could see about mainstream coverage of the Power Nine, as well? I know they've been covered in mainstream news, because of their great resale value. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any mainstream coverage about the price of the cards, that isn't on the official site. Google and Yahoo didn't offer anything and I'm not aware of any site myself which would have this info. Maybe someone else knows about where to find it.--Rohrecall 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)