Talk:10th Edition (Magic: The Gathering)

Untitled

Just a helpful point from someone who doesn't normally use Wikipedia... in the main article 'regeneration' and 'equip' are listed as a keyword mechanics - technically they are keyword actions. I didn't know how to add this without screwing up the flow of that sentence. -RVJM

Equip is a keyword, you are probably thinking attach there. Regeneration, well, that's true, but it is enough of a keyword, and used both internally and in colloquial speech as one. The simplest way to make the sentence correct would be to add a parenthetical note, so it looks like "regeneration (a keyword action)", perhaps with a link to the List of Keywords article. I'm just not sure if the distinction should be drawn in this article. 84.177.180.233 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Cards

Where did an insider say the Brand choice would be whether or not Legendary cards are in the base set? I don't remember seeing it either on MTG.com or MTGSalvation.--Bedford 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither... —Nightst a llion (?) 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I see nothing about it tonight, when they have the next roudn of voting, I'm removing that part of the article.--Bedford 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that that sentence itself may be where the insider revealed that particular tidbit? Maybe that person wanted to share a piece of info but is being more subtle than in the past given the recent litigation. Just a thought. Feel free to keep or delete at will.

The only problem with that is that this place is not a publisher of original thought or information. Something like that should be cited from another source, especially because of it's importance for how the setup of this set would become. --bradleyjx 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. I reworded the section, trying not to use weasel words but not trying confirm that which is unconfirmed.--Bedford 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page be considered proof enough that legendary permanents are, as rumored on MTGS, in 10th Edition? It mentions the Reya Dawnbringer promo (though it does not quite identify it as the release promo as other sources did) and uses the new Kamahl art as a background picture. --84.177.166.125 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Should we note all cards which are already confirmed, or just a few notables? Also, is Hurricane notible enough?--Bedford 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane is notable enough

Fair use rationale for Image:Magic10thedition.jpg

Image:Magic10thedition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Cards

The "Notable Cards" section needs to be re-writen. Whoever wrote it did a poor job, using awful grammar, inserted their own opinions on the quality of the cards, and gave explanations on how to use some of the cards. The writer, overall, is very un-encyclopedic. This needs to either be deleted or re-writen soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.50.76 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]