Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] WikiProject Page

Shouldn't all wikis relating to MTG be listed on this page in the form of its own section? HaLoGuY007 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[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 Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg
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)

Yeah, the Jimbo card sucks, both as a card and as a photoshoppery. Any objections to me fixing it? Annorax 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

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

Done!
Shortcut:
WP:MTG
Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 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)

Just an opinion but even though you may find them inacurate you shouldn't remove any info, unless you have something to replace it with. People may have need for the info you delete without replacing. I was using the Arabian Nights article yet someone kept deleting the cards, but failed to but anything in its place, until it exists i need that info. Hence the point of an encyclopedia. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.232.240 (talk • contribs)

[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? Or a userbox? 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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). FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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? FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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? FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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)

[edit] Magic: The Gathering sets

Just letting people know that I have nominated Magic: The Gathering sets as a Wikipedia:Featured list candidate; see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Magic: The Gathering sets. —Lowellian (reply) 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some users have raised objections to the images used on the Magic: The Gathering sets page. I don't believe those objections are valid; if the objections are valid, then I think they would also apply to the images used on the Magic: The Gathering article and render them unusable...could editors of Magic: The Gathering articles familiar with image use policy contribute to the discussion about image status on the nomination page? —Lowellian (reply) 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe on Magic: The Gathering's discussion page, there was talk of permission from Wizards of the Coast to display their card images. You might want to look at the archives there, or just write Wizards yourself to get permission. I doubt they'd be hostile to the idea. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept permission only images. Either the image is free or it isn't. If the image is not free it must conform to WP:FUC. Jay32183 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Easily solved if one asks wizards to license the content in an acceptable way to Wikipedia. Doesn't hurt to ask, the worst they can do is say no and request the images be removed. If not, then, make a fair use rationale, but I'd still check the main Magic page's discussion since I'm pretty sure this subject has come up before. FrozenPurpleCube 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wizards will not be releasing their images for free, they still make money off of them. Not every unfree image will have a valid fair use rationale. Jay32183 05:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they make money off the card sales, I doubt they make any money whatsoever off selling images for cards, let alone set icons. But hey, if there's no valid fair use rationale, remove the images, replace with a description of them. If you're really concerned, try listing the images on Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead. More knowledgeable heads there, I hope. FrozenPurpleCube 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
2¢... or so...
First, what ppi and width are the images being uploaded at? If the numbers all small enough (ie 72 ppi at a width of 1/2 to 2/3 the actual card) the image ceases to be something that could be used to compete w/ WotC/Hasbro.
Second, the instruction and flavor texts should be blanked. Same reasoning.
Third, is a full card needed to illustrate the point? To show relative positioning all that is really needed is the section from the edge of the card in to just past the symbol, and down from the top until just below it. The rarity issue is best illustrated by just a single set of black, silver, and gold from one expansion, sort of like what is in the table lower down.
- J Greb 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning only satisfies FUC#2. FUC#8 is going to be a big problem. The fair use rationale must specify why it is necessary to use the unfree image in the article. Based on your last point, the cards shown in the lead definitely do not qualify for WP:FUC because they could be replaced by a blank card frame, with a fake logo in the appropriate colors. That image would be completely free and fulfill the same purpose. Jay32183 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure that a "fake card" would be less of a problem, since it could be construed as infringing on Wizard's magic trademarks and copyrights even more so than an image of a real card. (though MTGsalvation does do it, I don't know that Wikipedia should when talking about actual cards). I really think the best way to proceed would be to see if it's possible to get permission from Wizards/Hasbro in some way. Yes, that permission would have to be a free license, but they did release the d20 SRD under the OGL after all, so it's not like there is zero hope. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Worst that happens? They say no, demand the removal, replace with descriptions. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and while I can see the possibly limitation of the C/U/R to fewer images, things like timeshifted cards are another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt they would give any useful image away under a free license. Free means completely free, so if a site wanted to use the free frame to degrading ends, they'd be without recourse. If artwork's involved, they'd similarly be deeding over valuable rights. No, they would be insane to grant a whole card image.
I think it's a great article, but if it leans too heavily of fair use, it will not be featured. And as has been pointed out, the lead image doesn't even seem to qualify for fair use. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if somebody used an image for degrading ends, Wizards would have the typical responses of slander/libel/defamation to use regardless of the license. Wikipedia itself has a policy against such abuses. Thus I'm not convinced that that is truly a valid concern. And I am not even saying they'd grant a whole card image. But they might ok the expansion symbols and a card without art being used. Or they might not. Nobody knows till they at least ask. FrozenPurpleCube 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But, a free license means that wikipedia policy alone does not apply. Anybody can use the image to whatever ends they desire, and in the absence of an unfair some sort competition suit (which would not apply without competing sales), Wizards could literally do nothing about it. They've shown a desire to protect their intellectual property, so giving unlimited rights to use a card frame is not something any rational actor would want to do. Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A "free" license is not a license to do anything. I could take any number of pages off wikipedia and fill them with libel and slander, but not violate any other policies like the WP:GFDL. I could still be held accountable for that action, if I were to violate applicable laws.
How does this apply to the current situation? I don't know for sure. But it is conceivable to me that there may be an acceptable license for both Wikipedia use and Wizards. There may not. They may be more paranoid about these images than the rules for D&D. However, I think WP:Logo *might* cover the issue of these possibly trademarked and copyrighted images. Also, I note that this featured article does have licensed images in it. Lots of them. So maybe it's not an insurmountable obstacle after all. FrozenPurpleCube 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But you could take wikipedia pages, republish them for profit, or alter them to include pornographic or political images. I doubt Wizards wants to forfeit their recognizable graphic property this way, but acceptable free licenses would require them to. Point of fact, Wizards has enjoined software makers from using scanned card frames in the past, something they would not be able to do for any frames they licensed freely. Anything short of a free license must be justified by fair use, and having three copies of each expansion symbol and the card samples are problematic. Cool Hand Luke 10:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In the former case, they might have an argument for slander/obscenity. In the latter, I suspect license or no license, they'd have zero recourse anyway, given the wide leeway given towards political speech. Besides, I noticed MTGsalvation.com is still doing their self-made cards. If that was indeed a problem, how come they're doing it? It's not like Salvation hasn't had a legal run-in with Wizards. Beyond that, as I noted, there is a featured article with limited licensed images, and I would say the fair use claims are only opinions, not hard and fast concerns. I think having the images of a whole card as well as all of the set icons is an important part of commentary and criticism that is a valid fair use, other people don't. Resolution? I don't know, I could live with use one icon per set and one illustrative section for rarities, so it doesn't bother me if that change is made. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WotC will never ever ever ever license their cards under the GDFL, for reasons stated above. That would imply giving up control of them and allowing them to be used in competing products, for illustrating "Magic sucks!" works, and so on. As for MTGSalvation and make-your-own-card uses, well, number 1 it's likely fair use (parody), and number 2, even in the cases it isn't, WotC is more than happy to have this tacit advertising for them. Heck, in a sense due to the messed-up world of copyright law, it could be argued that stores like SCG shouldn't have images of the cards they're selling, since that image could adequately be replaced by just the card name (this is the argument I believe Jay32183 to be making at the page?). I doubt that such a claim should it go to court would win, but it wouldn't be thrown out prima facia. It would be idiotic for Wizards to sue over this free advertising, however. Wizards would only complain if their art / cardframes were used in a way that was both seriously damaging to Magic's image and if winning a suit would actually mean a darn thing. For instance, random flamer on the Internet using Magic art to say Magic sucks? Suing them won't do anything and will only bring attention to them. If Inquest decides to go rogue and slam Magic using their own copyrighted material, though? Or if Newsweek wants to use Magic art for some reason? Those both have money in the bank account, so there's a point in suing them and deterring future infringement (or at least guaranteeing in the Newsweek case that they pay WotC for the privilege). I believe WotC did something similar to clamp down on people selling proxy cards over eBay, for example. The fact that they only need to use the legal weapon rarely only implies that it's serving as an effective deterrent.

The "by permission" argument is probably better. In fact, Wikipedia used to cheerfully accept copyrighted material by permission. Unfortunately, the free software zealots noticed this and agitated a change in Wikipedia policy to not allow this any more, because copyright = evil or something. The "high" reason is that theoretically someone could yank their "by permission" quietly, then make a big fuss to the media that Wikipedia was stealing their copyrighted works. There's also the fact that a Wikipedia-only permission wouldn't apply to mirrors, and would make copyright-compliant mirrors look funny without the image. Of course, I'd just say to standardize a procedure for permission granting & revocation myself, and say that mirrors keeping track of permission issues is their own darn problem. Sadly, this argument has been closed for awhile now, so I wouldn't get your hopes up on changing this, especially when you consider that the zealots would actually prefer all free use material gone completely (despite the fact that the law clearly allows it). (Also, disclaimer: I'm on the "open-source" side of the nerd divide here; open-source may be a _better_ way to do things in many cases, but that doesn't imply that closed-source is bad and must be destroyed, like Richard Stallman, etc. would say)

As for the actual MTG Sets article, I'll only say that I think the logos are valid fair-use, and have said why in the FL discussion. SnowFire 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is all correct. They might be willing to give site-specific permission, and they might even be willing to license under something like CC-by-nc-nd (which bars commercial use and derivative works), but these licenses are unfortunately disfavored under Wikipedia policy. Any of these images must be deemed fair use. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is near closure. Currently four votes (if mine, as the nominator, is counted, that would make five) supporting the list. Two votes oppose on the basis of image use. —Lowellian (reply) 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Kenji

This article was recently published. It can probably be used to improve Kenji Tsumura. Jay32183 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Tour Qualifier

It has been suggested that the article Pro Tour Qualifier, one I did not create but cleaned up extensively, be merged with Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering). There's no discussion at either page for it, so I figured I might as well start one here, with my own opinion:

Support: I believe the PTQ article is extremely small. I think it'll be good for a section of the PT article, but standing on its own is rather silly. I can't believe I didn't think of it. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur as there's probably enough content to cover the concept of a qualifier, but not enough to branch out on its own. That may change one day, and it can be added at that point. Besides, the best way to explain a PTQ is in the context of a PT anyway. I am not sure, however, that PTQ should redirect to the MTG page. Are there any other sports/games which use the term? If so, it might be best to make PTQ a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found any, but I made Pro Tour a dab page a while back. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Update: Just Googled "Pro Tour Qualifier". The first 18 results were all for the MtG PTQ, the 19th was about ITTF PTQs. Don't know about any others, though. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We could first move Pro Tour Qualifier to Pro Tour Qualifier (Magic: The Gathering) so that the general term is freed up to be redirected anywhere, but the history of the article is still preserved somewhere. Jay32183 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Moving it works for me. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support: The article doesn't have enough information in it for a stand-alone. I would suggest a dab, though, so that, in case anyone wants to make an article for the ITTF PTQs, there will still be a hard link to the PTQ section of the Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) article.--Lifebaka 02:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested criteria for notable cards

I think we need objective (or at least semi-objective) criteria for a card being notable. I suggest the following:

  • Spike criterion The card had an extremely successful tournament deck built around it (Donate), or is/was effeicient and powerful enough to be a staple in most decks of its colour(s) (Lightning Helix, Remand).
  • Johnny criterion The card does something truly unique, somthing that had never been done before it. Examples: Golgari Brownscale, Spellweaver Volute.
  • Timmy criterion The card is a superlative in some way, like most expensive non-Un card (Autochthon Wurm), or largest non-Un creature (Dark Depths).
  • The card had an entire mtg.com article dedicated to it (Skullclamp). Preview articles and Single-Card Strategies articles should be specifically excluded.
  • The card has an interesting and truly unique story associated with it (Timbermare).
  • The card is seen as iconic (Serra Angel, Shivan Dragon).

I suggest that any card satisfying 3 or more of these criteria is definitely notable, and any card satisfying 2 can be considered. Obviously, this could use some tweaking, but I feel it would be better than our current (largely non-existent) criteria. --Ashenai 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding "The card, or its art was used in a promotional fashion directly with the set, or several sets" and in some cases, the character of the card might be relevant if they were used in the storyline of the set, such as Bosh, or Lord Konda. FrozenPurpleCube 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the fourth category could go with several other categories. Most cards featured in such articles are iconic, interesting, or broke a format enough to be banned. And note the Johnny criterion makes for quite a lot of notable cards in Future Sight. But I like the suggestions. If we trim it down to just three, such as "Spike" (historically powerful), "Johnny" (interesting), and "Timmy" (iconic), with only one necessary, I think that would be better. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We should have a source to confirm the "historically powerful", "interesting", or "iconic" claim so that it does not come off as original research. Simply sourcing that the card exists and claiming it falls into one of those categories would be OR. Jay32183 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant on trying to use sources for notable cards. I can see how to source the "historically powerful", but the others may be a little more difficult. We would probably also lose a lot of legitimately notable cards simply because we can't source them. And, well, these are categories for us to determine which cards to use, not necessarily categories to put the cards under, though we'd be explaining how the card fits in. (I guess you mean source the explanation next to the card?) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We as Wikipeidans aren't supposed to be making judgment calls, we can only reflect the judgments from reliable sources. It would not be the card itself that needs sourcing, but the explanation for why the card is notable. Jay32183 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes more sense. Thanks. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Obvious, verifiable truths don't have to be sourced. For example, Dark Depths' notability is that it produces the largest non-Un creature in Magic. I can find a source for this, but even if I couldn't, anyone with a little free time can input some searches in Gatherer and verify this. Similarly, Spellweaver Volute is the first Aura that can enchant a card in an out-of-play zone: this is also verifiable, and thus doesn't necessarily need to be sourced.
I tried to make as many of my criteria independently verifiable as possible: I was hoping that this might mitigate the need to source every single card mentioned in a set article. --Ashenai 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a card that fits just one category should be notable: for example, every set has at least 5-10 cards that fit just the Johnny requirement (yes Future Sight has more like 40). I included the fourth requirement because a card having its own article pretty much guaantees that it's notable, and better yet, it can easily be shown to be objectively notable, by linking to the article. --Ashenai 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artists on set articles?

Should we add a section to the Magic set articles about the artists contracted in each set? I'm not suggesting anything more than a list of artists, possibly with links to their respective websites (assuming they have them). Is this addition something this Wikiproject would be in favor of? --Lifebaka 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to listing the artists, but links to their sites would be a bit much. Just give the artists a wiki-link to their article, since most of them probably qualify for one anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No. If you're just listing the artists that appear in the set, it'll be way too many. But, not all artists are actually contracted. But even if you can find a source telling you which ones are, I still don't think this is an essential part of the set articles. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, just a suggestion. Soon as I thought about it I decided it wasn't a great idea myself, anyways. Still, noting any famous artists who worked on a set in the set article might be worthwhile, assuming the artist already has a Wikipedia article.
As for the sources, I'm pretty sure Taste the Magic would have 'em going back as far as its archive goes. Beyond that, there might be something on the product pages for the older sets. Or I could always reference Gatherer searches, if it comes to it... --Lifebaka 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Novels?

What should be done with Magic novels, especially ones with the same name as the set? Recent edits to include novel plots in Ravnica, Guildpact and Dissension seem to me to give undue weight to the novels, stealing too much focus from the set, but I'd like to kno people's thoughts on this. --Ashenai 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps adding a (book) or (novel) to the title for any articles on MTG fiction? I'm not sure if there's a preferred descriptor, but using one seems to be the logical choice. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the books are notable enough to deserve their own article. Perhaps a little section within each set about the plot of the novel? If you don't agree, then I'd recommend Ravnica (novel), leaving Ravnica to point to the set (and add a link from the set to the book). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the notability guidelines for books/novels aren't completely accepted, and they don't cover franchise fiction in particular. Certainly some coverage of the storyline as covered in the novels is appropriate, but where to draw the line? I'm not sure there's much in the way of consensus yet. At the least, List of Magic: The Gathering novels isn't that much different from List of BattleTech novels or even List of Care Bears books. OTOH, the list of "For Dummies" books was deleted. So...who knows? It's still pretty up in the air. I think some coverage is appropriate, but I've not got an idea where to draw the line. There are even some folks who say any non-vanity published novel merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Writers?

A section for notable Magic Writers would be appreciated. Many writers already have their own page. Stealthymatt 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for a category actually. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gleemax

It seems this article has been created, possibly as the result of some sort of marketing campaign. Just thought folks here should know about it, and the ongoing AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourced notable cards

How can you source cards from so long ago such as arabian nights. All people are doing is removing info instead of making the effort to find references. You are ruining the articles completly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.232.240 (talk • contribs)

Well, I would suggest looking for articles on the actual cards. There are retrospectives even today about various older cards. Not that I think A Man in Black's methods are effective, I think his actions are less cooperative than they should be, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, for those curious, it's because of actions like this [2] [3] and so forth for the rest of the magic sets that I suspect this anonymous IP is upset. I do think this is if not quite disruptive, a bit hasty. In some cases like the ones for Homelands (Magic: The Gathering) and The Dark (Magic: The Gathering), I've done what I could to fix it. I certainly agree there are a few iffy edits in the notable card sections, but I don't think this blind removal of the sections is appropriate. I'm not going to blindly revert them either, but I do think a little more caution would be advised. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and this page [4] would probably be an excellent source for anybody else looking to add information about cards. I've done what I can for now. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I do feel removing parts of the articles is very hasty and the unknown IP address has a right to be upset, further up he mentions he was using the info and for someone to simply just delete is unjust. Surely memebers can find the references needed and amend as they go, replacing unsourced info with sourced info but simply deleting it isn't the way to go Rohrecall, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, templates like {{fact}} would have been much preferable, as would more participation in the discussion here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just reverted 3 edits made by A Man in Black, I wish to use the information/notable cards in the articles so I can track down the relevant sources/references. How whould I know which cards to get sources for if they are not in the article for me to see? I feel A Man in Black has taken it too far by simply deleting notable card sections, without showing any effort of tracking down information that may be helpful himself. Any deletions or edits are supossed to improve an article NOT take away from it. Also only admin surely have the right to tell people how long they have to sort an issue, if it takes 6 months to sort then so be it.Rohrecall 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit hasty? I brought this up three months ago, and these article have gone untouched since. How long do we keep opinionated, game-guide heavy unsourced content because someone claims they might someday fix it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you consider that your edits were blanket, and not given thought or consideration as far as I can tell. If you'd just removed a few and fixed others, it'd appear less hasty. But as I see it, you're moving far too quickly to fix something that isn't a big problem, if it's a problem at all. And you strongly object to what many people consider the most reasonable source. Now certainly some of the notable cards were obviously poorly chosen, but your method of handling it wasn't any better. FrozenPurpleCube 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, AMIB, you are hasty, you deleted Notable Card sections 3 months ago and you are doing so again. You don't try to fix the articles yourself. Too much work for you? I guess you find it easier to just delete the whole section. Why don't you help improve the articles with information? --Mjrmtg 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He reverted all my edits back, as far as i'm concerned AMIB is hindrance to the articles. I personally say delete all Magic Articles and be done with it. People like AMIB is every reason I dislike Wikipedia people always too easy to delete but will never lend a hand to fix. I will get my information from elsewhere in the future. Rohrecall 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't let one Wikipedia editor's hasty actions get you down, it can be irritating (and believe it or not, you'll probably irritate folks yourself, I know I have), but that's why we assume good faith and treat other users with respect. I don't think the consensus here is with AMIB at all, so perhaps he'll consider rethinking his opinions or at least methods. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He's editing in defiance of consensus: as long as he does so, he can be freely reverted, as far as I'm concerned. He does not seem to understand or accept that 1) WP:N makes it clear that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, just the existence of the article itself (in other words, only the sets themselves need to be notable, not the particular cards, and 2) WP:CONS is policy. He's simply going by his own personal guidelines, which would be fine, if he could get people to agree with them. Which he apparently can't. --Ashenai 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different but related note, I don't think we should have Pojo's up as a suggested reference for notable cards on the main page (completely sidesteping other issues about the section). It's basically just the opinions of the bunch of people, and I don't see how that can help anyone really source any claims they might make about the notability of a card. Magic Arcana and Star City Games appear to be fine, but Pojo's should be removed from the list. ----lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizards.com as a reliable source questions

Ok, just to get some outside views, I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about use of Wizards.com as a source for Magic related information. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely they must be used when it comes to Storylines, design and other info they offer on the set. Links to the official site should be used as they are the official site, almost all articles on any topic link to an official site of sorts and use them as references, MTG should be no different. I understand there may be "bias" but feel if they state a card is good or notable its their opinion, no different to any other site. I really do feel strongly that the official site should be used. Rohrecall 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Using them as a source for opinionated claims about their own products is a Bad Idea. We don't cite ford.com for "Notable features" of their cars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you think it's a bad idea, but please tell me why it's a bad idea. Give me an example of a usage you find objectionable. Articulate a problem, don't just assert it. Then please tell me how it will apply to every possible usage of their site. See, while I feel it's possible there could be a concern, I don't see it as a concern of such a level that it's impossible to use the content. Merely to be appropriately cautious. And Ford Taurus does link to Ford's website. Check it out. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the compromise suggested by Piotrus will probably be acceptable to almost all parties involved (other than possibly A Man In Black), so I propose I quick vote on the subject. The suggestion is that we tag all notable cards sourced from MTG.com with some sort of tag/text/footnote that says, in effect: card X is considered notable by the publisher. --Lifebaka 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest a vote, but rather an ongoing discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea because it's treating promotional material as something other than advertising. Ads are not sources.

These lists suck. They're terrible, useless, contextless lists of trivia. Ideally, we're incorporating this into the body of the article, largely as part of critical reception of the sets. We can't use WOTC's site for critical reception, nor can we use it for "notable" cards, because WOTC taking note of their own product is neither the general nor Wikipedia's particular definition of notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't suck. Do you? Everything was fine until you came back. No rebuttal to your Ford agument? --Mjrmtg 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They're certainly not trivia. Magic cards are the most important part of the game, analogous to chess pieces. The Chess article lists the pieces used to play the game, and add information about them. The Magic articles should do the same. Obviously, it is infeasible to list every one of the several hundred Magic cards in an expansion, but that's no excuse for not listing any. And I fail to see why WotC's statements on which cards are notable should be disregarded. In fact, I think you are the only editor who finds this an issue. --Ashenai 10:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pokemon CCG has a Wikipedia article for each individual card. Magic coverage is less crufty, yet we can't ignore the cards with unique properties, because those are the most interesting part of the set. Wizards are ok source for the facts that are listed to justify the notability. The notability itself should be self-evident from those facts. Your removal of Kai Budde's card has left me completely dumbfounded: if this isn't notable card, then what is?  Grue  13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the confusion stems from the term "notable". When we're talking about "notable cards", we're not saying those cards meet WP:N guidelines: we're using the word "notable" in the English sense, not in the Wikipedia sense. I cannot see how AMIB's persistent crusade to delete all the cards is helping the project. --Ashenai 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not, its not helping the project at all. I'm a new member I didn't know anything about AMIB's time limit of 3 months, is he some sort of Admin or does he just feel that he has a right to delete it all after a certain time? I tried to sort things and he simply reverts the edits, it comes accross child like and that he isn't even a fan of MTG as if he was surely he would take a different approach. Rohrecall 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He is a WP:ADMIN (I think), but admins here don't have any special rights about deciding what an article should or should not contain. He may or may not be a fan of MtG, that doesn't really apply: I've nominated entire articles for deletion which were about subjects I am a fan of. The only question, really, is whether his actions are helping the project or not, and whether he can build any sort of consensus supporting his cause. Neither of these currently appears to be the case. --Ashenai 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He's not acting as an admin, as far as I can tell, so that's not relevant or meaningful. I do think it's clear it's not helping, so perhaps a modification of methods will occur. FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, what ads are being used as sources? I'm sorry, but if you're going to treat Wizards.com as nothing more than an advertisement, then I'd say it is you who are making a severe mistake. Their website is actually a professionally done site that covers the subject in a reasonably journalistic manner. It's no different than say how NASCAR.com covers their sport. I don't agree with you about incorporating the cards into the body text in all cases, since the individual cards are often better noted when looked at on their own. Why? Because often the cards have no thematic connection as to their reasons for being notable. Nor is the description of a card as being "notable" simply a matter of critical reception. Sometimes it might be, but sometimes it is because of the uniqueness of individual cards. Perhaps you might want to look at the discussion above as to what might constitute a notable card. We aren't using Wizards simply to decide what's notable and what's not in all cases, but often simply using them to verify what fits the criteria established. Now this doesn't mean that every card that was listed as notable meets them, but that's another matter. Still, I've noted that you've reverted multiple times cards I've re-added as notable that had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that could be considered opinion. Leviathan is either the first card with double-digit power and toughness or it's not. Timmerian Fiends was either the last ante card or it wasn't. Why do you remove them?
In any case, I don't think the consensus is with you, so I suggest you find another way to accomplish what you wish. Not that I'm clear on it, perhaps if you provided an example of how you'd do it instead of your blanket removals. That apparently isn't helping. FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it a case of AMIB thinking the official site just "advertises" and is biased. If anything they are usually the first to point out the errors and the such. They cover the events that take place showing what players make cards notable, The quality of a card/deck is down to a player not down to what any site says so its not them spinning it to make out their product is better or a particular card is good, I feel the official site is pretty unbiased and just as opinionated and honest as any other site. Rohrecall 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting an article on Wizards.com is not the same thing as quoting the entire company themselves, even if it's Mark Rosewater. Therefore, quoting an article in regards to a card's notability is from that person's viewpoint and will probably be backed up with some sort of evidence (e.g. Mike Flores claiming Pact of Negation is powerful). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Wizards.com represents a valid content creator, as I've said before, while they're not a Consumer Reports-independent, they certainly offer a professional, well-written and not overly biased website that covers Magic quite well. I honestly haven't seen a single actual example of them being demonstrated as biased, let alone such widespread bias that they can't be used at all. I accept in concept the idea that some caution is warranted in using them, but I think the standard AMIB is setting is a tad too high. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats a really good point Temporarily Insane, things they say are backed up with evidence & statistics. You have Mike Flores, Frank Karsten and the reports of the pro tours, GP's and other sactioned events. Rohrecall 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The official site is biased. It's published by a company with a vested interest in promoting the game. It's particularly enlightened self-interest (it's fairly candid, often brings in people noted for writing for outside sites), and can be useful for describing, say, the development history of a set. However, it isn't a source of notability for anything, as it is at its heart an advertising outlet. It exists because Hasbro feels it will increase interest in their game.

As for citing Wizards for the first card to do such-and-such, every single card that isn't a reprint (or functional reprint, like Balduvian Bears or whatnot - oh wait Balduvian Bears is the first renamed reprint of an older card ¬_¬) is the first thing to do something. Let's see...Blessed Wine is the first healing cantrip, Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text, Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-color activated abilities, and so on. (I could dig out more random cards if you'd like.) Implicit in our claim that a card is the first card to do such-and-such is the claim that this fact is important, and that's not a claim we can make sourced only to an advertising outlet.

The sad thing is everyone's too busy defending bad content instead of replacing it with good. It's not as though WOTC is the only kid on the block. Why aren't people breaking out their Scryes or Inquests? Why not hit the archives of Pojo's old MTG site, or SCG's archives, or even the Salvation or Londes archives?

These articles are terrible, and it's rather sad to see them defended as-is instead of people trying to improve them. (Lifebaka (talk · contribs) is the sole exception, having replaced some unsourced and badly sourced cards in Future Sight with ones sourced to Inquest, and kudos to him or her.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Starcitygames.com is just as biased then, they sell singles. They very well could be biased with the intention of selling more cards. That's pretty much double standards and the official site does not "advertise" anything they just go off what is happening in the meta-game. I can't find anything personally apart from the official site for the early sets. Any Help? Rohrecall 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Each of those websites is selling something, yes, so they, too, have an interest in seeing the game continue to thrive. I don't read most of those other sources, so I can't readily use them as sources, but they're not what we're discussing here. I'd say they're as unbiased as the Wizards website. So if people want to use them, then sure, by all means. But choosing, say, MagicCards.info over Gatherer is silly. They're both MtG card databases, the only difference is one is maintained by Wizards itself. So why is it preferable to quote an article on SCG over one on Wizards, even if they both have the same author (say, The Ferret)? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please provide examples of the bias you've found on Wizards.com. And I think you're confusing notability for a subject, and notability within a subject. Nobody is going to argue that Magic itself isn't notable. That'd be dumb. Thus we don't have to worry about whether Magic itself is notable, so the real question is "What's worth covering on the subject of Magic" (in all its various iterations and for that purpose, I think wizards.com is as fair a source as any, and better than most. If you've got any particular examples of problems, I've never seen them. Your objection is a blanket denial, without demonstration of anything. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. You can say the pages are in terrible shape if you want, I think that's a bit excessive, but I agree they can be improved, so I just consider that to be a bit zealous choice of language on your part. If you want to discuss what criteria we should have for what makes a card worth covering, fine, but that's *not* necessarily related to the subject of sources. Try this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic:_The_Gathering#Suggested_criteria_for_notable_cards FrozenPurpleCube 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SCG is selling coverage of the game as much as they're selling the product. Scrye and Inquest are selling coverage of the games, period. This is a far cry from being owned and operated by the publisher of the work in question.

As for using magiccards.info over Gatherer, who suggested that? If we're going to be linking to scans of the cards every time we mention a card (a discussion for another time), better to use the site doing so legally than some other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That was an example, in reference to citing gatherer for "uniqueness" claims, not for linking card images. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Scans of cards aren't sufficent sources for claiming that such-and-such card is unique. Every card is unique in some way, and one would have to examine every card to back up a claim of uniqueness. (For example, I could claim that Grizzly Bears is unique, and you'd have no way to verify that by looking only at that card; instead, you'd have to look at every card to find cards like Balduvian Bears.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm just going to try to make things clear with some points here.
  1. There is no objection to Wizards.com as a provider of true and reliable content except with a possible, though as yet, undemonstrated bias.
  2. While there may be a concern that Wizards could be biased, there has been no demonstration that there is a pervasive problem with their content, thus caution is the reasonable response, not blanket denial.
  3. What content a given article contains is a matter of editorial discretion, the same with the content of any other article. The policies and practices that shape that are many, but in the case of verifiability, Wizards.com is acceptable.
  4. This is distinct from the concept of notability which determines whether or not a given subject has an article.
  5. That with regards to the articles on individual sets, there is no objection to there overall notability, thus all questions are matters of content, nothing more.
  6. It is generally accepted that the content of the articles on the individual sets will mention cards that meet certain criteria, such as that suggested above at [5]. If there are any other ideas for how it should be done, that's not related to whether or not Wizards.com is used as a source to verify whether or not a particular card meets that criteria.
  7. While in many cases, the notable cards sections of various set articles were poorly done, and unreferenced, they weren't such a problem that they needed to be removed wholesale. Especially since in some cases, like the YMTC and Invitational ones, it would have been more appropriate to reference them than delete them.

Anyway, that's what I'm saying here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest and most effective to deal with all sources of notable cards on a source-by-source basis. There are articles from MTG.com which are great to make certain points. As far as I can see it, AMIB only takes offense to potential bias in articles from wizards.com, so only those articles which use hard facts (Online Tech, for example) should be used. This same idea would have to apply to all other sources as well, however, in order to remove ALL cases where opinion or bias might render a source useless. Blanketing wizards.com as a no-no for sources would be a bad idea even more so than overusing it, far as I can see. But whatever standards we apply to it should apply to all other sources as well, lest the same issues arise. --Lifebaka 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see that AMIB's objection is merely to the idea potential bias of Wizards.com, as even when there's no bias in a statement (such as cards that were Invitational or YMTC), it doesn't seem like wizards.com is an acceptable source. Or when the characteristic of the card is unique such as the last ante card, or the first card with a double-digit power and toughness. Those are basic facts, not opinions. Whether or not the information should be included is another question, but one independent of the question of sources. Perhaps AMIB might care to take part in that discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com isn't a reliable source for claims that such-and-such product or aspect of a product is important or noteworthy, as wizards.com exists only to promote WOTC's products. It's a perfectly good source for insight on how sets were developed, or simple publishing facts (release dates and such). When they start talking about the impact of their products, take it with a massive grain of salt, and don't use it as a source.

As for the lists of "notable cards," they mostly suck, sourced or not. Unsourced parts I've been removing (because they really suck), but, ideally, we're going to be talking about cards in the context of the body of the article, not making lists of trivial facts.

I've been quietly hammering Time Spiral into a less fansite-y frame with more emphasis on being accessible to non-fan readers and including more of the real-world kinds of facts and context. Ideally, I'd like to drive it to GA, so we can have an exemplar to help guide cleaning up the other articles.

That said, I'm extremely disappointed that nobody has yet suggested that other sources be found for the factual claims in these articles. Less excuses, more research, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that Wizards.com should be used on its bare word as to whether or not a given card is notable, so don't worry about that. I merely seek use of wizards.com to verify information with regards to whether a given card is notable. The issue of how to decide what cards or notable or not is a separate discussion which I invite you to participate in above. This goes for the content of the notable cards over-all, which I agree did need work. But that had nothing to do with wizards.com being used as a source. As to whether wizards.com should be used for the impact of their product, that would depend on their statements, and what other sources say or don't say. I can imagine cases where Wizards might say one thing, and another source say another. In such cases, I might well say include statements from both of them. To do otherwise might be biased. FrozenPurpleCube
AMIB has a point about the lists being somewhat in conflict with WP:TRIVIA. Another method of representing the cards ought to be used instead. At the very least, the lists should be changed into some sort of prose. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a style-issue, thus not directly connected to this subject, but to me, it's not like this is a list of general trivia, but a list of individual items that warrant coverage in that form. It'd be one thing if the sections were isolated facts, but with the connecting element being that they are facts about cards, it's not a trivia section problem any more than say, a list of characters is a problem in an article about a book, movie or television show. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The pojo site and Scrye's site don't offer anything. I've found more info on the official site, more than on any other third party site. Also SCG don't offer anything either, I couldn't find a thing on them for the Urza's saga page. I suggest that only for sets after 2000 (Invasion) should other sites be the main focus as anything before is tough to find.--Rohrecall 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I say the lists are in conflict with WP:TRIVIA only because they are lists. The same information represented in any other format does not violate WP policies, as WP:TRIVIA does not stipulate on whether or not lists of information actually are trivia. If we can find any way to change the format of the information, that'll be one potential problem with the MTG set articles gone, and will probably remove much of the need for sources, depending on how the change is accomplished. If we use the cards as examples of other sourced information, sourcing them wouldn't be a problem. ----lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is a list doesn't mean it's necessarily trivia. We even have Featured lists. A set is by definition a list of cards. It's just that there's not much to say about most of them.  Grue  14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, just because it's a list doesn't mean it's trivia. Even the WP:TRIVIA page notes exceptions like "Convert bullet points to prose where possible, although in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate, such as Cameos or Continuity errors." . Now whether certain cards in the set is narrowly focused or not is an important question, but I think they clearly are, even if the pertinent facts are somewhat disparate. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bulleted lists of disparate facts are what WP:TRIVIA is meant to discourage, and what we have on our hands. Some of these cards are firsts or lasts, some are powerful, some are odd, some influenced later cards. Their common links are tenuous at best.
These are not narrowly-focused lists, and cards worth noting should be noted in the text of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, the key feature is they are still individual cards, which is a very particular theme. And I think trying to merge all of that into the text of the article would actually tend to bury the facts in an unhelpful way. FrozenPurpleCube 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urza's Saga - References needed, please help

After doing what I can for the Alpha, Beta and Unlimited articles, I have taken it upon myself to get the notable card section for Urza's Saga to meet the standard that is currently been discussed about notable cards. I have re-written the section and have found several references for the cards, yet I'm having trouble finding references for two cards. Morphling and Yawgmoth's Will, noting thier power and impact on the game so if any one has any please either leave them at my talk page or post on its talk page here [6]. Or if anyone else wishes to help, let me know and we can get it all up to date and correct. Thanks --Rohrecall 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Managed to find what I was after but sources outside of mtg.com are impossible find mainly due to the sets age and the fact very few articles actually directly state why a card is powerful, apart from the ones I found. --Rohrecall 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying the cards issue with regard to policy

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

I believe the recent controversy has obscured the entire issue more than clarified it, so here's how I see policy relating to this project.

  • WP:N says: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia." Therefore, we are under no obligation to show that certain cards are notable on their own, only that the sets themselves are notable (which no one is debating). WP:N only talks about the notability of an article.
  • WP:RS talks about reliable sources. Gatherer is controlled by WotC, but i widely considered the most reliable source on cards, so I suggest we keep using that to source all of our cards. When giving information about a certain card, Gatherer is sufficient as a source if the information is about an aspect of the card that can be checked in Gatherer. For instance, the statement "B.F.G. has the largest printed power and toughness of any creature in Magic" can be checked in Gatherer, so giving a Gatherer search as a source is fine. Other statements need sources. Note, again, that we do not need to show that information about a card is notable, since WP:N does not apply to article content.
  • WP:TRIVIA does not directly apply to the current articles, since lists of cards are not trivia. Trivia would be things like "Mark Rosewater's second son was born while he was working as Head Developer of this set", or "this is the first set with Homarids", which are already integrated into the article body, and so are in accordance with WP:TRIVIA. Bulleted lists of game pieces (cards, in this case) are fine: Chess has a bulleted list of game pieces, for instance.
  • WP:CONS applies to all editors, and all edits, for all articles. WP:BRD explains the correct process: that it is perfectly all right to make bold edits, but once they have been shown to be against consensus and reverted accordingly, the correct course to follow is to build consensus for the proposed changes.

In short, we are obligated to give reliable sources for any statement about Magic cards, as per WP:RS and WP:V. We are not obligated to show or discuss the notability of any card or card fact, as per WP:N. WotC articles are generally reliable sources; there may be exceptions for certain statements, which will have to be debated separately, on their own merits. --Ashenai 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gatherer is not a sufficient source for anything. It is direct, personal observation, the epitome of original research. These sets are not themselves sources, merely subjects.
WP:TRIVIA is applicable because these facts about cards are so disparate. Some cards are firsts or lasts, some are powerful or weak, some are odd, some influenced later sets, some are inspired by previous ones.
WP:CONS doesn't override things like WP:V or WP:OR. No amount of people really wanting an interpretation they all like will override the need for sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You claim that Gatherer is not a sufficient source for anything? That is completely and utterly wrong. Gatherer is an excellent source for any number of facts, like whether a card appeared in a set, who the artist is for a particular version of a card, the flavor text on it, any pertinent official ruling... Is it a source for every particular fact or detail? No, it's not, but to claim that it is absolutely not a sufficient source for anything? That is patently absurd. It may be a primary source in that it's directly reproducing the cards, but that still means it is usable. There is no WP:V or WP:OR question here, I think we all concur sources are appropriate for any claim. The only question here is whether wizards.com is an acceptable source. You have not made a case for them being unacceptable. If there's a question as to how to cover the notable cards in a set, that is simply one of style, and it would be best to discuss that on its own merit in order to avoid confusing issues. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Gatherer is the best and most reliable source for raw card (rules) information. Debating this is patently ridiculous. --Ashenai 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Gatherer is good for some trivial facts, you're right there. It cannot be used for any evaluative claims, though. (Linking Gatherer isn't a source for saying such-and-such card is the first or last anything, for example.) My point was that it's no different from referring directly to the cards themselves, WRT sourcing issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, as for wizards.com, wizards.com is not a reliable source for evaluative claims about their own products, such as what sets are important or not and what cards are important or not. This is because, as a WOTC outlet, any such evaluative claim is going to go through the filter of WOTC's own self-interest.

We should not use wizards.com for evaluative claims of WOTC's product. Examples of such claims which should not be sourced to wizards.com are which cards are noteworthy for anything but design reasons (which will need to be sourced to an article by somebody who has some business commenting on that; Mark Rosewater or Aaron Forsythe or Matt Cavotta, for some current examples) or tournament impact (which will need to be sourced to an article by somebody who has some business commenting on that; Flores's articles are fine, the guy who writes "multiplayer Magic" not so much) and sets which are popular or not (this even goes for negative commentary; dogging Homelands or Masques serves the purpose of highlighting the latest products differences from it).

We should also distinguish between promotional and editorial content. Promotional content should be treated as any other advertising, and not used for anything but the blandest facts if at all. An example of the former is You Make The Card; these cards aren't independently noteworthy unless someone other than WOTC commented on them, and no claim other than "WOTC held an online contest called You Make The Card to design such-and-such card" should be sourced to them. Additionally, these cards don't really need to be mentioned other than in passing unless someone other than contemporaneous wizards.com articles has seen fit to comment on the card. (Crucible of Worlds has seen much commentary, Forgettable Ancient not so much.)

This isn't to say wizards.com isn't useful for a source at all. I've already given a lot of examples above of how it should be used. Insight on the design process from the people doing that design is useful. Some of the wizards.com articles are written by outside writers about subjects which aren't entirely self-serving for WOTC; the state-of-the-metagame articles written by Flores and Karsten and other established writers are a good example of this. Entirely trivial facts, such as release dates and such, can and should be sourced to the horse's mouth, so to speak.

This is how Wikipedia treats company mouthpieces: with the utmost care, given the publisher's inherent interest in the subject. It isn't even a conflict of interest; wizards.com serves one purpose, and that is to generate interest in and promote WOTC's products.

I've been picking on the "notable cards" sections because they're evaluative and largely unsourced (and ugly and often wrong or dumb, but these are lesser concerns). Unsourced evaluations, interpretations, and opinions don't belong on Wikipedia, we all know that. On top of this, however, evaluations, interpretations, and opinions from the publisher of a product aren't useful, either.

Frankly, I'm rather disappointed at this project, particularly in the time spanning March to now. What happened to WP:MTG#URGENT - Notable Cards? There was some discussion of what a notable card should be, but little effort or discussion of the fact that these sections and indeed the articles containing them are exceedingly poorly sourced, aimed only at a specialist reader, and fairly poorly written overall. To put things in perspective, the Pokemon Wikiproject has put more effort into sourcing, article quality, and encyclopedic tone than this project.

I intend to continue working on MTG articles, cleaning up the many opinionated, trivial, unsourced, and just plain badly written articles on the subject. I can only hope that doing so serves as a good example for this project, but its recent history gives me little hope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you do realize Gatherer is usable for many things. Now about wizards.com as a source, the thing you keep missing is the fact that there is nobody disputing caution in the use of Wizards.com. But caution isn't grounds for a blanket prohibition. Hence it being important to examine it in the individual circumstance, not to make sweeping declarations that it can't be used for a given purpose. Thus I request evaluation of any statement sourced to Wizards.com on its own merits. No more, no less. Is this unacceptable to you? I think everybody agrees that caution is appropriate. But it seems to me that you're declaring things summarily unacceptable without even considering them. Or providing examples of problems. The closest things to an example is some comment about the Greatest-Johnny set. That didn't convince me of any problem. It also doesn't help that you've reverted bare facts sourced to wizards.com. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And as far as it goes, I don't deny that the M:TG pages overall need work. But so do many things on Wikipedia. Sometimes things can be a bit messy. Oh well. As long as we're stuck at this impasse, it's hard to go anywhere. Heck, I'm still troubled by the way you seem to have a problem with mentioning every YMTC "winner" . Is it so hard to grasp that their unique nature of being designed by the public is worth noting? And frankly, I'd be surprised if every one of them wasn't given an article in it in various CCG magazines when it's announced. It'd be one thing to say they should have their own article (or even one for the YMTC contest, which I think could be done), but really, it seems you have a problem accepting them at all. That comes across as a bit odd to me. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
From the sidelines: It doesn't look like AMIB is saying that wizards.com, or WotC for that matter, should flat out be barred as a source for any information. He does point out places where WotC is the best, or only, source that can be cited. What he is railing against, and the guidelines do seem to support him in this, is using the produce of the cards as a source for ranking importance or notability. From those, it is clear that for evaluations of that nature need to be cited from sources other than 1) the editor writing the passage and 2) the producer of the items being extolled or decried. There is a work around, but it needs the editor(s) putting the passage together to find a fair chunk of old material. Roughly:
"When promoting set Foo, WotC used cards Fin, Fan, Foom, Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Fud to promote it.[Cite articles from trade magazines, and ad campaign] After the release of Foo, players found Fin, Fo, Fud, Tra, and La to be stand outs,[Cite InQuest, Scry, et al reviews] but Foom and Fum were over rated.[Same type of cite] Also shortly after release, Bada, and all other cards from Foo that used the "Bing" ability were banned from Type 2 tournaments as broken.[DCI Bulletin #]"
This would generate a list of notable and/or important cards from a set and it would also satisfy the need for the notability being assigned by outside of WotC.
Side note: AMIB has pointed out that most MtG cards are, by their nature, unique combinations of cost, power, and effects. As a class the YMTC "winners" are noteworthy as they come from outside the normal development process, as individual cards though, they are as unique as any other. - J Greb 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've found AMIB to be a bit hardline, as he has expressed quite blanket statements against using Wizards.com. Perhaps some of them were mistakes like the one about use of gatherer above, but I do feel his position is not one based on the same approach as myself or others. I prefer individual examination of the circumstances. His seems to be blanket against some usages.
As for when it comes to identifying which cards are notable, that's really its own discussion, one which needs to be restarted. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And I've pointed out that the "all Magic cards are unique" argument is just muddying the waters. Every object in the universe is unique, in its own way. Common sense tells us that "the first blind person to climb Everest" is a brand of uniqueness that is worth mentioning, while "first overweight 32-year-old woman to hold 43 M&M's in her mouth for over a minute and a half" is not, even though both are unique. Similarly, common sense tells us that "first vanilla 1/1 Wizard" is not interestingly unique, while "first card to mention the stack" is. --Ashenai 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we could use a little help with debating this issue. AMIB has agreed to giving mediation a try. Accordingly, I've listed this page on the Mediation Cabal's case page, see the template at the top. Anyone interested in this and related issues is welcome to participate. --Ashenai 09:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

All of the discussion of the mediation will be on this page. Since the debates have been scattered onto multiple talk pages, I will ask each party to give a statement on the matter, and what they suggest to resolve the issue. Sr13 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My feelings can be found immediately above, beginning with "Now, as for wizards.com..." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel the issue of whether Wizards is an acceptable source or not is actually a tangential issue, and not what I think this mediation should be about. Similar problems have been brought up, and resolved amicably, before.
My problem is that you, AMIB, seem to have an active disregard for consensus. I understand that you mean well, but your methods of sporadically participating in debate, then proceeding to ignore what everyone else has said and edit-warring without further discussion are not appropriate. You keep bringing up WP:V like a mantra, ignoring the fact that your interpretation of how WP:V applies to this issue differs significantly from everyone else's.
I am quite ready to debate the matter of Wizards' usability as a source further, but I would like you to stick to debating it only, until you've established at least a rough sort of consensus in favour of your arguments, and not simply edit-warring. Posting a block of text on this talk page every once in a while and then largely ignoring counter-arguments is not how consensus is formed.
As for the specific issue you brought up, I would like to echo Mr. Manticore, whose input you have not yet responded to: there's nothing wrong with advising caution in using Wizards sources, but this cannot be debated "in general". Show us a couple of specific examples where you feel Wizards is used as a source and should not be, and we'll actually have something to discuss. --Ashenai 07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
These lists of "notable" cards are an exceptionally bad place to be using wizards.com as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are used to verify facts. Again, you're speaking in generalities. Wizards.com sources are not primarily used to establish a card's notability (as I have shown, WP:N specifically states that an article's elements, in and of themselves, need not be shown to satisfy it); they are used to underpin specific statements describing the cards' design, usage, tournament impact, ban history, etc. MTG.com articles are a perfectly valid way to source these type of facts. Again, could you point to one or two specific examples where you believe otherwise? --Ashenai 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
AMIB finds it easier to delete the sections rahter then give examples or fix the sections (as he is still deleting them) He rather someone else fix them. I've given up restoring them, helps my blood pressure to ignore his bad faith edits. --Mjrmtg 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
AMIB thinks we're just plain better off without claims that various cards are "notable" unless useful sources accompany them, instead of trying to justify someone else's opinionated claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Like has been mentioned before, we're mostly fine with changing the title text to "Example cards", if that helps. I must stress yet again that only the subjects of articles (in this case, the Magic sets themselves) need to be shown to be notable. WP:N clearly explains that an article's elements do not need to be proven notable on their own. Please don't ignore points of policy that you don't like. --Ashenai 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a list of factual claims. There are no sources for these claims. Someone has brought up the lack of sources multiple times, over the course of months. At some point, we remove the unsourced claims. That point has come. This is an elementary case of verifiability; specifically, the lack thereof. If you're going to revert an unsourced claim back into an article, source it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This still leaves us with plenty of people reverting him, but the current situation is far from ideal, in many ways. AMIB, your truculence and long periods of silence on talk pages (while continuing the edit war) is not helpful, and serves only to drive people who are tired of arguing with a brick wall away from the project. I don't know if this is a strategy you employ willfully, but consensus building should not consist of exhausting and driving away people who do not agree with you. --Ashenai 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been restricting myself to removing wholly unsourced, opinionated claims, as well as superfluous non-free images, and still seen reverts with no explanation other than "rv". Last I checked, we do need references for opinionated claims. Nobody seems to be paying attention to what they're reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion set logo images

Participants of this WikiProject might be interested in engaging in the discussion on Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets regarding the use of images in the Magic: The Gathering sets article. —Lowellian (reply) 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translate those contents into Chinese

Hello, everyone. Now I am trying to translate these contents you contributed into Chinese, and a sample has been completed, you could see it from the page of Urza's Saga. It would be appreciated if you permit me a reusing of some ready-made templates that are originally purposed to support English version, like Info Mtgsets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.143.35.15 (talk • contribs) on June, 29 2007 at 03:14 (UTC)

[edit] Keyword List AfD

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords has been nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've spoken my piece, though I suspect the problem will be with the way the game guide provision of WP:NOT is selectively enforced. There are other pages that I've nominated as game guides, and you'll find people will go out of their way to deny them being a game guide, but I suspect those self-same people would jump over themselves to dump this one. Sigh. A pity, but this is the sort of thing that's frustrating me off Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic: The Gathering deck types

I was just looking at this page, and it seems like it's getting a bit full of individual decks that maybe aren't so important, or well-sourced. Or at all. Anybody else agree? Or have suggestions on cleaning it up? Conceptually, I support the existence of this article, but I don't think it should be laden with individual decks. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like all the examples, either. Get rid of them. I'd prefer it to be more focused on what makes a deck aggro-control instead of just control or just aggro, etc. I'm sure there are some good articles out there for that. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindslaver Note

I made a small edit to the Mirridon page. It had a note about Mindslaver (that it was the only card in the game that allowed a player to control an opponent's actions) that didn't take into account the existence of Word of Command. I didn't delete the note, as some apparently thought that it was warranted, but I included that it was one of two cards that had such an effect.--199.125.45.10 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An outside proposal

Hello there, we are a small wiki based solely on mtg! We have observed the problems with "Fancruft" that you people have. Since we are based entirely around "Fancruft" we see it as a waste of human resourcess whenever any article about magic gets deleted this way. We also understand the reasons why wikipedia.com acts as it does, and since many parts of our wiki are based on a more representable concept with links to the various pages on important magic categories it will be easy for you to duplicate that approach from our wiki! In return whenever any of your magic the gathering articles become marked as "Fancruft" we would like you to consider transferring them to our wiki so that your carefuly collected knowledge will not go completely wasted!

Use the link below to make contact with us!

http://mtgpedia.com/index.php?title=Guest_Forum

[edit] WikiProject Marked Inactive

I have placed Template:Inactive on the front page of this WikiProject because it appears to now be largely inactive.

  • a sustained discussion on this Talk page does not appear to have taken place since June/July 2007
  • the last participant to join was in August 2007
  • the last update to "things we are working on" was in March 2007

As the template states, if you disagree with the assessment that this WikiProject has gone inactive, remove the template from the main page. In addition to the template placement here, I will be listing the inactivity at...

Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Do you think we could increase interest in this WikiProject if we offered a barnstar? 5 points on a star= 5 colors of Magic.--Bedford (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but we oughta' try at least. I'll go make a file presently. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Got one. I haven't uploaded it to Wikipedia, but I've got it on Flickr.com here. It's a .png with transparent background, which Flickr can't deal with—it looks much better with the transparency. I'm open to suggestions on it, or someone else making a better version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Decent first draft, although the edges look rough and the top point looks more yellow than white to me.--Bedford (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's card to be deleted

Please, pay atteniton to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jimbo mtg card.jpg since the picture is widely used by this project members and even in the stub template. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion are strong. --Egg ✉ 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)