Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Archive 1

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. Templates_for_deletion 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&mdash;I think "(set)" might be ok&mdash;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.


 * Legends - redirects to myth Legend. A few pages link there.
 * 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)


 * Chronicles - already a disambig page.
 * Ice Age - ditto.
 * Homelands - a little stub on some festival.
 * 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.


 * Nemesis - already a disambig page.
 * Prophecy - some controversy here, looks like it would be merged with Prophet, but these articles are quite long already. Anyway, there exists Prophecy (disambiguation).
 * Invasion - lots of articles point here.
 * 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.


 * Torment - redirects to Suffering with 3 links to it.
 * Solution: unredirect and fix these pages.


 * Judgment - a legal term.
 * Solution: add tag.


 * Legions - links to Roman legion with a surprisingly large number of links.
 * Solution: redirect Legions to Legion which is a disambiguation page.


 * Onslaught

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.


 * Scourge - a type of whip.
 * 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

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 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 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: --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:

You can access it with. 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 Fair use are followed and the image description page includes a rationale as specified in Image description page. 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_ &gt;|&lt; 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:


 * Ravnica: City of Guilds - expansion information
 * Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering) - stub description of the plane itself

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:
 * Mox Emerald
 * Mox Jet
 * Mox Sapphire
 * Mox Pearl
 * Time Walk
 * TimeTwister
 * Ancestral Recall

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 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)

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 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 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 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: :::

Here is what you get:

Here it is in execution:

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)

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)

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... &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)

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)

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|10px|]] 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)




 * 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)

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


 * Done! Dfrg.msc [[Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg|10px|]] 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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 (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? --[[User:EvilZak|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 or )
 * the card does something which hadn't been seen in the game before e.g. 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)

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.
 * http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/ravnica/home and subpages
 * http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/guildpact/home and subpages
 * http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/dissension/home and subpages

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

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  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 template;  will yield. SnowFire 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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?  Culv e  rin  ?   Talk  05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 or  or  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)

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)

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)

Dup articles?
I was looking at Category:Magic: The Gathering characters and wondering why each letter seems to have entries
 * MTG characters (A)
 * Magic: The Gathering characters: A

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.  -- 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. Naming conventions (long lists)). 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)

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 AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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 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 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)