Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Template box

Are you guys going to make a template box to put all the information in? For example, Overview, logo, history, storyline, Mechanics, Notable cards? I used to play Magic, just around 6th and 7th sets. I have all of Unglued, if it matters to anyone. I could scan and submit set logos from what I have... Can't believe no pages on Urza's cycle yet. Urza's Legacy: my fave cycle :) LockeShocke 22:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

That would be cool... but I have no idea how. That probably would be a good way to go about it, and then flesh out some of the deeper things in the article. Ambush Commander 02:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Should we, or shouldn't we?

I think it's important that we establish whether individual Magic set pages are appropriate for Wikipedia. Certainly, there are other less prominent articles, but we're looking at creating nearly 50 articles which, in the grand scheme, of very limited informational value. Just because there are articles on most of the Pokemon, doesn't make a very good argument since most of those are horrid stubs.

I think that most of the truly key information can be summarized and included on the single Magic: The Gathering sets page, probably in table format – set name, # cards, release date, etc.. Everything else is going to be at the level of so-called "cruft", and much better done by simple reference to the Wizards website. I am particularly worried about the proposed "notable cards" section, because it is inherently POV, being based on the estimations of the article writers ourselves. Adding things like logos and other information is going to present copyright problems, also.

Keep in mind that I am a big fan of Magic and contributor to most of the articles here. I just am not convinced that individual set pages is a good direction. Let's expand the sets and storylines pages and see how far we get. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

I know you're dedicated to the subject. As an quasi-inclusionist, I'm unconcerned with making the articles so long as they are not horrid stubs. I think we should be vigilant on that point. The first VfD went very well, and so long as we hold to that level of quality, there shouldn't be a problem. It's easy to see that if all sets are written up like Unhinged, the sets page would be unmanageable.
As for notable cards, that is a problem. Perhaps we could stipulate the top X cards in price along with any cards banned/restricted from the set. That would give a good and more objectively-inclusive card list.
Another idea is just doing the lead sets of each block and making essentually merged block articles. This makes for many fewer articles total and is quite manageable, I think. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Notable cards could also be based on new mechanics (Wizards provides a list of new mechanics on each product page) and famous cards (which Wizards also provides on the product pages. We could also include cards that were previewed before the set was released. Just some ideas. Notable mechanics shouldn't be much of a problem. Ambush Commander 18:47, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Checklist

(shamelessly stolen from Magic: The Gathering sets)

  • MTGSets Template - I tried my hand at it and the formatting is awful. Grue 13:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Cleaned it up a little bit. We need to add the extra sets (Portal and Un-). Ambush Commander 15:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Added the two extra 'blocks'. What do you think? Ambush Commander 03:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • I started to add the box to the existing articles. Grue 07:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like a large number of red links does the trick - they're slowly becoming blue. Unfortunately the new articles are stubs, too bad I don't have time to expand. Grue 18:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • With Portal's upcoming legalization, should it be moved from the Non-DCI Sanctioned Sets section? Senori 23:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Probably. In fact, I think it's high time we change this box to something of a vertical pane (looks a lot better). Maybe an infobox or something. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Manga poses some very interesting questions, because our template is in many ways similar to the Manga template. Ambush Commander 22:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed "Expert Sets" to "DCI Sanctioned Sets" since not all the sets are Expert anymore. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Disambig Notes

When the article with that name already exists what should we add in brackets? I suggest (MTG set). On the second thought I prefer just (set). Grue 07:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about simply "(Magic: The Gathering)". This should make more sense to outsiders, and few sets have the same name as cards or anything else in the game. No one looking at "Visions (Magic: The Gathering)" should suspect it refers to the obscure Legends card. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, it is long to type and since the article would mention Magic: The Gathering that tag doesn't really have to make sense to outsiders. It's unlikely someone would type "Visions (Magic: The Gathering)" in the search box, more likely she'll type "Visions" and then follow the disambiguation link. Also, maybe there should be articles for the whole block, so "Mirrodin (block)" and "Mirrodin (set)" would be different things. Grue 07:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's much more likely one would click on the disambiguated article rather than type it in. Given that that's the case, there's no reason to abbreviate "MTG set". It needs to make sense to outsiders who don't even look at the article. Have you ever heard of RC patrol? People look at these titles all the time, so let's help them determine context. Blocks don't need to be disambiguated. Just "Mirroden block" Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe just (Magic)? (trading cards)? I guess, whoever makes the first such article will make the trend. I'm going in backwards chronological order, so the first problem would be Torment and Odyssey. You'll probably do Visions/Mirage first. Grue 07:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, you'll hit a problem at Scourge. With redirects though, I think long titles are no big deal. I think almost anything would work—I think "(set)" might be ok—I'm just biased against abbreviations. A project I'm involved with frequently uses "(Latter-day Saint)" over "(LDS)" in titles. It's just more proper. Cool Hand Luke 07:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "(Magic: The Gathering)" would be best. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
(Magic: The Gathering) might be a bit long, however, it is certainly the most descriptive for our purpose, and the one that would best identify it as dealing with Magic. Although, (Magic) might work. Senori 08:54, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Just get over the longness of the title. Magic is misleading to the sizable part (possibly majority) of the population that would interpret it as a Magic trick. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hows about Mirrodin (cards)? The Steve 06:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Disambig 2

These names are already occupied.

  • Arabian Nights - Redirects to another article with a longer name. Many articles link to a shorter name.
Solution: add (Magic:The Gathering) tag.
Solution: fix those pages and remove redirect.
Did that, except for the Category:Legend page. We should get that moved too. And just on a side note, we should create a link to the article Myths. I wonder how many hits that redirect gets. Category:Myth. Ambush Commander 15:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Changed the redirect information. Hope you don't mind. Ambush Commander 03:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Solution: move?
  • Tempest - already a disambig page.
  • Stronghold - little Apache server stub. Most linked articles mean "stronghold" as fortress.
Solution: move?
  • Exodus - important religious book.
Solution: Add tag. Disambiguation page Exodus (disambiguation) already exists.
Solution: add tag.
  • Planeshift - redirects to PlaneShift, a MMORPG in pre-alpha stage of development.
Solution: unredirect.
  • Apocalypse - a well-known event, but also a supervillain.
Solution: create disambiguation page.
  • Odyssey - Greek poem, but also a TV channel.
Solution: create disambiguation page.
Solution: unredirect and fix these pages.
Solution: add tag.
Solution: redirect Legions to Legion which is a disambiguation page.

Oh, I just found something - Onslaught is captured by X-Men fancruft! I don't know what to do. It seems to me that this minor character should be moved to Onslaught (X-Men), emptying the space for Magic article. But X-Men fans may think otherwise... Grue 16:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd be watchful of using the label "fancruft". Certainly Magic-related articles could be called that as well, and it's something we have to be careful to avoid. :) -- Netoholic @ 17:26, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
    • Onslaught should be a disambig page with links to Onslaught (X-men), Onslaught (Magic) and Onslaught (band). A mention of what it actually *means* might go there also, along with a Wictionary link.
      • Maybe, but I don't think we should disambiguate Scourge though. The religious use is principle, so at most an italicized note on the page. And yes, calling X-men stuff "fancruft" is rather black kettleism. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm aware of that. I wanted to put a smilie but then didn't. Grue 20:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Solution: make Onslaught a disambiguation page.

Solution: add tag.
ok, i noticed this also recently, several series were missing from disam pages and others are simply a mess. i will be working on this in the days to come. i will use this line on the disam pages if there is one:
Seriename an expansion to the Magic: The Gathering collectible card game.

Boneyard 10:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox for individual set

[Logo] Urza's Destiny

Block Urza's Cycle
Date May, 1998
Abilities, keywords Trample, haste
Makeup 150 cards: 20 rares, 40 uncommons, 90 commons
Notable cards Urza's Dynamo, Urza's Incubator, Bodysnatcher

I tacked on the infobox from my user page, which I oroginally stole off the John-117 article. Hope no one minds. I changed around the fields to fit with the card series. You guys can change the colors, maybe to a black outline with a light brown bg. In fact, I'm going to do that now. If the facts are wrong in the box, it's because I made them up. Feel free to change them.LockeShocke 02:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks really cute, good work. Grue 05:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Very nice. A little question: if we're adding set logos, how big are they going to be? If they're like, larger than usual, or the full version, we might want to add a linebreak between the logo and the name. Ambush Commander 00:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are now two wiki templates for Magic infoboxes: mtgnonblockset and mtgblockset. I've been adding them to some of the articles. Thanks Inky! -- Grev -- Talk 05:37, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
So, that Yellow one on some of the set pages is a little too bright; would it be possible to make the bars some color other than bright, bright yellow? -Senori
Sure; just edit the page, and in the infobox, there should be a line with "Background Color" or something like that. Anyway, just put in the color you want to use, and that's it! I've been color-coding the blocks myself, and designated yellow for Kamigawa block (sorry about that!) -- Grev -- Talk July 8, 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Hey, how about someone add a space for development codename, like "Control" "Alt" "Delete" etc. ? Someone other than me who knows what they're doing that is. fvincent 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Another outlet for pages

As you're putting together initial set pages, if you're willing to, please also release them to the MTG Archive wiki. There aren't currently any set pages up, and these would be a good start there also. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Symbols and logos

Is there a reason why none of the sets have logos or expansion symbols? Copyright issue? Should we contact Wizards to get permisson to use them under fair use? -- Nis81 15:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some looking around shows that other sites are using the logos and expansion symbols. A look at fair use makes me think that our use of the logos and symbols has enough educational merit for free use. (Nis81)
Unfortunately, that may not happen. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" are no longer allowed. According to WotC's copyright notice, "Information received through this website may be displayed, reformatted, and printed for your personal, noncommercial use only". Even if we wrote them for permission, the images would not be allowed here. The only fair use case is probably for the Magic and WotC company logo's themselves, I doubt we can make one for all the set symbols. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
What if we drew our own copies of the set symbols? Would that count as fair use? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
They would still clearly be derivative of the originals - kind of like playing All You Need Is Love on a kazoo. Also, I'd rather see no symbols, than confuse readers. -- Netoholic @ 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see any conflicts between the use of the expansion logos and Wikipedia:Logos GeeJo 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Contact Wizards? -Senori 18:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Used by permission" images are also no longer allowed here. The only hope would be for WotC to formally release them into the GFDL. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Big changes

I hope nobody objects to the big changes I've made. I moved the discussion to this page to keep the main page nice and tidy. I also checked each expansion page and figured out what needs to be done. Many of the pages are great and only need one section to be complete. Please give your input. - Nis81 14:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines

While we have some guidelines specifying what sections need to be in the expansion articles we don't have anything relating to style. Should other expansions mentioned be italicised? Are card names bolded or normal? There are probably many more we need to consider and decide upon. -- Nis81 14:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've noticed some good looking conventions being used and I've edited some pages with those. What I've seen/done: all expansion names italicised (and wikified on first mention). All card names bolded except if card name is not mentioned in total (such as Lin Sivvi vs. Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero). There's two but we probably need more. Please discuss if you feel anything should be different. -- Nis81 16:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Block colors

Each block now has its own color. Here's a table

Block Color
Unblocked Lightgrey
Ice Age Lightblue
Mirage Orange
Rath Magenta
Urza Violet
Masques Tan
Invasion Gold
Odyssey Red
Onslaught Lightgreen
Mirrodin Silver
Kamigawa Yellow
Portal Teal
Un- Pink

The teal for Portal block might be a little dark. The text is readable but maybe there is a better color out there. Also, the violet used for Urza block is very similar to the magenta in Rath. There is a difference when looked at side by side but there might be alternatives here as well. Here are some colors to avoid using for a block (which will only happen every so often): green, blue, indigo. All of these colors are too dark for the text to be read. We'll need to agree on a color for Ravnica block when it comes out. -- Nis81 14:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox so everything is silver. Three reasons: the colors for new sets weren't consistent with each other, the colors were being arbitrarily assigned, and some weren't that readable. I think a consistent look is the best. -- Norvy (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Keywords vs. Mechanics

Can someone explain the difference between keywords and mechanics in the infoboxes for the individual sets? -- Norvy (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Keywords are single words, usually found on the cards, that signify special rules or mechanics. Examples would be "trample", "banding", or "echo".
Mechanics can be denoted by keywords, but often aren't. For instance, Cavern Harpy or Lava Zombie's ability (usually called Gating) is a mechanic.
For more info on this, read the following article by Mark Rosewater: [1] --Ashenai 10:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Project Notice

I modified the Final Fantasy Wikiproject's Project Notice to fit with this project and have put it on the talk page of many MtG articles. Hopefully this will help increase the project's visibility.

Here's what it looks like:


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


You can access it with {{Mtgproject}}. Any improvements to the template are welcomed! -- Norvy (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use of expansion symbols

I've been asked to look at if the use of expansion symbols such as Image:Visions (Magic- The Gathering) Symbol.gif can be done under fair use or not. Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. That said, I feel that the use of the expansion symbols in the articles on the respective expansions is justified under fair use, so long as the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use are followed and the image description page includes a rationale as specified in Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. Use in any other article is probably not justified. --Carnildo 22:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Magic Sets in Category:Magic: The Gathering

I really don't think that articles in Category:Magic: The Gathering sets should also be in Category:Magic: The Gathering. Category:Magic: The Gathering should be more of a holding ground for articles that don't fit any of the subcategories. What do you think? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Norvy (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Good. I'll get started. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable cards in set articles

When you speak of notable cards in set-related articles, please take the time to write what format any ban information added applies to. Otherwise the result is a bloody tangle of a mess. also, i fixed some factual errors (Sharazad is legal to have 4 of in both Vintage and Legacy). --80.222.69.104 08:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Super Secret Tech

The page on Unhinged lists the card "Super Secret Tech". I was wondering if there was any source to that or if it was a hoax (qv Throat wolf). Radiant_>|< 19:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

eBay has several reputable people selling it: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?satitle=super+secret+tech -- Norvy (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Magic: The Gathering planes

Slobad create Category:Magic: The Gathering planes, huh? All articles about planes should be part of this category, huh? Slobad 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(Magic: The Gathering)

Is there any real reason to give pages like Ravnica, Mirrodin, or Guildpact the (Magic: The Gathering) nametag? With these, there's nothing to disambiguate them from. -Senori 05:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ravnica's been jumping around lately. As of now, it looks like this:

So it essentially needs to disambiguate from itself. Any ideas? Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering) and Ravnica (plane) would probably be my vote. -- Norvy (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not just Ravnica? Im sure it's a trademarked name, so I doubt there will ever be any ambiguity. Move Ravnica: City of Guilds to Ravnica, make Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering) redirect there, and fix the MTG sets template accordingly. Andrew Levine 00:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Ravnica is a plane, not a set, huh? Slobad think that Ravnica or (Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering)) should be an article about the plane, with links to each of the three sets in the block, huh? Slobad 05:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm agreed that keeping information on Ravnica under the storyline section is the way to go. The article can cover both.-- Norvy (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Problems with the Magic the Gathering wikiproject

While looking over some of the MtG articles and poking in an edit here and there, I realized that there were two pretty important unsolved issues. Could we please debate these? I'd like to get them over with ASAP, and get some sort of consensus, because I don't much feel like having editwars over them. :) --Ashenai 23:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

1) We desperately need a way to link cards; some of the in-depth discussions of notable cards would need card links so bad. WotC's AutoCard feature won't work, because it uses JavaScript. I suspect that making an article for every card we want to link is not the solution, though it'd be a fun challenge. That leaves external links to a card database. Is this doable? If yes, which database seems best? Otherwise, does anyone have any better suggestions?

I'm not having a problem linking to Wizard's images... Somber Hoverguard I'm more concerned about the implications of deep linking to them. Does this create any kind of copyright problem? -- Norvy (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, but the legal text seems problematic. I'd really prefer to be on rock-solid legal ground on this issue.
The best solution seems to be to ask WotC. If they're not keen on the idea, we'll see if there's another database that's more permissive. Does that sound good? Ashenai 08:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Still not a lawyer, but I did some research into the subject, and while deep-linking seems to be a controversial issue (sometimes extremely so), it appears to be legal. So I'm going to go with what Norvy suggested and link to Gatherer images. I am doing this in a spirit of good faith; if anyone believes (or knows) this to be illegal or unethical, please post proof and I'll help with removing the deep-links. --Ashenai 14:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

2) We need to establish some way to decide which cards are or are not notable. Browsing some of the sets, I got the distinct impression that the editor considered "notable" to equal "cards I had loads of fun with". (This isn't meant to be an accusation; I have my own list of pet cards.) I'd say that any card banned or restricted in Standard (at any time), Extended, and Vintage is notable. Those are the cards that warped environments; they should certainly be mentioned. Here's another suggestion: any card that does something fundamentally unique is notable. This is a lot more debatable, but it means that cards like Mindslaver would qualify as notable, which I believe is appropriate. On the other hand, this would make Time Stop also notable, which is a lot less clear-cut. Beyond these, however, I'm at a loss. These are clearly not the only notable cards; Birds of Paradise does not fit these criteria, but is absolutely iconic. I would appreciate any suggestions. :)

I think that you should just be bold and remove those which you don't think belong, and add the ones you do. We can take each set on a case by case basis rather than setting a specific rule. I do think there should be a limit to how many cards we mention per set, somewhere between 5-10. -- Norvy (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a slight amendment to this; I think it should be 5-10 narrow categories, not 5-10 cards. By narrow categories, I mean cycles, or cards that are almost always talked about together. For instance, Alpha has the Power Nine, which are clearly notable but should only take up one of the 5-10 slots. Same for the original Boons. Otherwise, we have to mention the Powwer Nine, and we have no "slots" left to mention cards like Birds of Paradise or the Boons, which would, IMO, be a shame, and present a very skewed picture of Alpha.
Naturally, each "narrow category" would merit only a single bullet point in the list, and a single comment or explanation for the entire category. This way, we can show enough cards to give a "feel" of the set, but won't drown the reader in information or make the page look unwieldy. --Ashenai 15:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd be fine with counting the power nine as the "power five," because the moxes fall into the same "narrow category," and thus could take one slot. I wouldn't be comfortable bundling them all together into one slot. -- Norvy (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, get on over to Alpha then (I just finished up that page), and see how you'd change things. :) Just please explain changes to the Notable Cards on the talk page. Thank you! --Ashenai 07:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah! Looks pretty good. I thought that you wanted to discuss the cards in depth, but just mentioning them and letting the link do the talking works great. An idea: perhaps some of the notable cards from the basic set can be covered not in the edition that they were first printed, but in the last edition that they appeared in, mentioning it was their last appearance, rather than filling Alpha with a bunch of iconic cards. -- Norvy (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
That would work well. I'm thinking the dual lands, especially; putting them under Unlimited or Revised would free up some badly needed "mindshare" for Alpha, and it makes sense anyway. When you say "dual land", nobody thinks of Alpha, they think of Unlimited or Revised.
We have to think of which other Alpha cards to make notable then, though. I included a list of "runners-up" on the Alpha Talk page; I'd suggest picking a couple from those. In any case, I'm too sleepy to decide right now, or do any meaningful work. Please do feel free to be bold and edit Alpha, if you want. --Ashenai 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone's monitoring this conversation anymore, but what about using the cards that WotC uses as the preview cards for each set on mtg.com as the notable cards? They try to pick cards they think will be appealing in their own right and as a representative of the set in order to increase interest, so one could assume that these would also be good choices as notable cards, at least until the set has been played and others inch their way into notoriety. FallenAngelEyes 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal: Three Kingdoms

Who knows when this was deleted? I have been away for awhile but I come back and I can't find this page at all. It hasn't been moved and appears to be lost. I'm looking through the deletion logs so I can vote for an undeletion but I can't find it anywhere. Any help would be much appreciated.

Hmmm... apparently, Portal: is a namespace, like Wikipedia: or User:, which must have confused the wiki software, the admins, or both. Stay tuned... --Ashenai 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
... Well, I asked the Help Desk. Unfortunately, no one could figure out how to get the articles back so far; this may change in the future, or it may not. In any case, the article names will have to be changed. I suggest Portal - Three Kingdoms and Portal - Second Age. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Ashenai 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Portal Three Kingdoms was restored. Portal: Second Age could not be found (if you can find a Special:Contributions link for someone who edited it, please tell me; it probably has another name). --cesarb 01:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Homelands

Slobad keeps vandalizing the Homelands page. Is there any way we can lock it?--Bedford 12:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

moved from project page:

Slobad has been insisting on vandalizing the Homelands page. We could use some peer review.

Hmmm... I think Slobad is clearly engaging in POV editing. However, the phrase "it is generally regarded as the worst expansion ever printed for Magic" is also pretty POV, in my opinion. What does "worst" mean? Least fun? (I'm sure a lot of people would give that honor to Urza's Block). Lowest power level? (That's Homelands, yes). Flavor? (Lotsa different answers here, I doubt Homelands would top the list). Art? (Ditto).
I've edited Homelands to reflect this: "least well-designed expansion" is something that can be supported (with an actual Rosewater quote, no less). How does the current version look to you?
I've also added Homelands to my watchlist, so I'll probably be able to help out if there are any further vandalism problems. Cheers! --Ashenai 15:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the changes. I knew that what I was reverting to wasn't true NPOV, but I also knew that someone who never heard of Homelands before should know that most view it as junk. You and the person after you's edits have been most helpful. Thanks.--Bedford 18:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Homelands is the worst expansion ever. It has the lowest power level of all sets and it had terrible design. I believe the designers even got fired. The store owner here still has Homelands for sale at $1.99 and can't sell even one. Even the seemingly good cards, like Autumn Willow, Serrated Arrows, and Merchant Scroll all suck donkey balls compared to Troll Ascetic, Umezawa's Jitte, and Cunning Wish (with only Merchant Scroll having any kind of application at all). There has to be a worst expansion, and Homelands is that expansion. Now absurd power levels like Alpha, Urza's Block, and Mirrodin make for bad expansions, but in a different way. Homelands is universally despised by every player I've met in the last decade. The most notable thing about Homelands is it stinks, and that aspect should be effectively communicated. --NorrYtt 03:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I really like Homelands. The game isn't all about power. To me it has a lot more character and flavour than some other sets (Masques is the obvious one). Don't worry, I'm not about to insist on edits or commit vandalism, I just thought I'd offer a different view. Magnate 16 Aug 2006

Recruitment for traffic and project membership

  • We should do some advertising on a few online boards for this project, asking those who are enthusiastic about categorization and documentation of M:TG information to contribute here. Here are a few suggestions:
    • The Mana Drain
    • MiseTings
    • MTGNews
    • Wizards of the Coast
    • MTGSalvation
    • Black Border (do they still exist? heh)
    • Game FAQs
    • The Magic Lampoon
  • That's all I can think of for now, but more people working will improve this project a lot. Ryan Prior 03:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

(magic: the gathering) addition

this only is allowed when there is another article with the same name right? it really isn't allowed when there isn't anything else? personally i feel it would just be nice to just add it to everything and make redirects. are there more people who feel that way or is it simply against wiki rules? Boneyard 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would you attach the (Magic: The Gathering) tag to everything? You should only disambiguate something when it's necessary to do so. -Senori 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Coldsnap

time to update the ice age block, remove homelands and put coldsnap as the latest serie of that block i take it? The question has still not been answered as of if Wizards of the Coast are going to use the old templates of the card or the new ones as of the 8th ed in 2003. there was supposibly problems with the card they made in the unglued set that had the old templates. Boneyard 09:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this question was answered in Randy Buehler's original Coldsnap announcement back in October. See here under the FAQ question "Q. Will there be theme decks?" Randy notes that there will be, and that they will include other cards from the Ice Age block, which will be updated with the new frames because the Coldsnap set will be using the new frames as well. FallenAngelEyes 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Demon Comments

While it is true that for the most part that demons are non-existant in the Magic the Gathering game, it is misleading to anyone who could be reading it with a limited knowledge of the game. In the Kamigawa set there was a heavy infasis on not only demons, but spirits, and demon spirits. It is unfair not to metion that while for the most part MTG has steered form the subject of demons, they printed a set of cards that not only contained demons, but made other cards dependent upon the "demon" creature type. For example the ogres in the Kamigawa set are heavily dependent on demons, because there are some effects that you lose "life" when there is no demon on your side of the field. Please understand that I am an avid player that does not disagree with the usage of the "occult" cards, but who thinks that people should have all the facts when looking at the game, not just some distorted facts. On the other hand though, I found the article very accurate, and mostly free from any bias. This is a well-written article with this one exception. If you think that I am totally off base please tell me, I won't be offended, I just thought that this matter needed addressed.

Sincerely,

    The Magical Scout

power 9 redirects

I made all cards in the "power 9" redirect to the Power Nine article.

Added redirects:

the other 2 were already redirected (Black Lotus, Mox Ruby)

--HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (random fact) I remember the first time I ran into this project was when I was creating the article The Dark (novel) (I couldn't use the name of the book directly, as I did for the other books in the series: The Named, The Key)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Unhinged Article

The blurb about the card Persecute Artist is about Guay's absence from the game for a set or two, but they make it sound like she was fired. It is written in an unprofessional manner and is also untrue. MaRo cleared it up a few years ago, and the card was made as a joke for the misconception because WotC didn't handle the manner in a professional manner not because she was rehired because of public demand. - Ty

Userbox

For all you that have userboxes, I just created {{User mtg}}. Enjoy! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This user enjoys playing Magic: The Gathering

Card sleeves

I noticed just yesterday that there was no article on Card sleeves, so I started one. It needs work... it's not an MtG set but since card sleeves are such an important part of the CCG culture, I figured I might be able to find people here knowledgeable about the subject. Mangojuice 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Storylines

This page seems more concerned with the game-related articles, but I think some of the story articles could use some love. Urza has a lot of "to be written" spaces, and the article for Yawgmoth has some crazy links, including one for Phage the Untouchable that goes to phage, and one for Akroma that goes to Magic: The Gathering. I don't know if Phage and Akroma should have their own pages, or if a list of Magic Characters page would serve better. Thoughts? -Oddball omega

I changed the Phage and Akroma links both to go to Legions (Magic: The Gathering), where their cards are both described in the Notable Cards section. That's better than before, but still seems a little off... Tophu

Magic page up for deletion

Zvi Mowshowitz Mathmo 03:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kept. User:IdahoEv's comprehensive argument [2] for inclusion of professional magic players is a good read, and noted here as a reference if this happens again. -- Norvy (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Magic: The Gathering needs a better pic than the hidious jimbo whales

we need a better pic on out main page as the jibmo wales one says nothing about magic or what it is. or our project Carbine 09:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

we need a page specificly for the diffrent colours or magic

we need a page deadicated to the colours ot magic and their description Carbine 09:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Magic:_The_Gathering#The_colors_of_Magic seems to work just fine, I disagree that another article is called for. -- Norvy (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stax (Magic: The Gathering)

Would someone from this project be willing to take a look at Stax (Magic: The Gathering) and clean-up the article to make it fit in with the standards around here. I'm not familiar with Magic: The Gathering at all (aside from what my friends tried to teach me 6-7 years ago in middle school), but stumbled upon this while doing wikification projects. Any help would be appreciated. Metros232 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for Project Members

I created a userbox for us. If you want to identify yourself as a member on your user page, add {{User WikiProject Magic: The Gathering}} to it. Tophu 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Decklist Template

We use quotes, pictures, and card links. On the Magic: The Gathering deck types and subpages, there is a need for decklists. I have no idea if this the correct way to go about it, but I have hacked a dirty decklist template on my userspace and I need someone who is better at wiki to complete it or at least tell me it's impossible.

Here's what you type:

:::{{User:NorrYtt/deck|Deck|Creator|Event|a|b|c|d|e|f|g|h|i|j}}

Here is what you get:



Deck
Creator
Event

a b
c d
e f
g h
i j


Here it is in execution:

{{User:NorrYtt/deck
|Red Deck Wins
|Shuhei Nakamura
|Japanese Nationals|
4|Grim Lavamancer|
4|Jackal Pup|
4|Mogg Fanatic|
4|Blistering Firecat|
4|Firebolt|
4|Seal of Fire|
4|Magma Jet|
4|Pillage|
4|Cursed Scroll|
4|Wasteland|
4|Rishadan Port|
4|Bloodstained Mire|
4|Wooded Foothills|
8|Mountain}}



Red Deck Wins
Shuhei Nakamura
Japanese Nationals

4

 Grim Lavamancer

4

 Jackal Pup

4

 Mogg Fanatic

4

 Blistering Firecat

4

 Firebolt

4

 Seal of Fire

4

 Magma Jet

4

 Pillage

4

 Cursed Scroll

4

 Wasteland

4

 Rishadan Port

4

 Bloodstained Mire

4

 Wooded Foothills

8

 Mountain


I'm going to clean it up and make it way better, but at least it's functional! NorrYtt 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Time spiral

I noticed that some of the parts of the time spiral were still stubs. does anyone have info on these new series's.

Ps whats this new snow mana in cold snap? F 22 07:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you tap a Snow-Covered Island, you get a blue mana that is also considered snow mana. Some cards in Coldsnap reward you for using snow mana.NorrYtt 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)