Talk:List of Magic: The Gathering sets/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Onslaught expansion symbol

January 10, 2003 Q: "Could you explain what the expansion symbol for Onslaught is? Is it a spider? If it is, why?" --Nate Jungemann

A: From Brady Dommermuth, Magic creative director: "Thanks for your question. The symbol represents a 2/2 colorless creature that could morph into a normal creature. In other words, it's what face-down cards look like while they're in play, before they become something else. We call them 'clay spiders' here at Wizards, although they don't really have an official name. For a better view of these creatures, take a look at Disruptive Pitmage, Serpentine Basilisk, and Skittish Valesk. All three are morph creatures that have just been summoned through the clay-like forms.

"On the R&D creative side, morph creatures were a challenge. They're 2/2 and they can attack, so clearly they're not just eggs or cocoons of some kind. And they don't have any color or abilities, so they're not just sneaky versions of the creatures they can become. They must be able to move around and attack.

"Enter Ixidor. The Onslaught story features a mad wizard named Ixidor who can bring things into being by simply imagining them. So we decided that Ixidor would be the master -- maybe even the discoverer -- of this new method of summoning. The 'clay spiders' represent Ixidor's magically sculpted creatures, and each one carries an 'aether signature' through which a creature can be summoned. (The creatures aren't actually stuffed inside the clay. It's like a walking gateway for summoning.)

"PS: The Break Open card doesn't exactly fit into my explanation above. Okay, okay, it contradicts it. We didn't expect the illustration to look like a Cephalid was literally stuffed inside the morph creature. So, um, just pretend it's a metaphor for the spell's effect. Yeah, that's it." Copyright Wizards of the Coast[1]

Unhinged expansion symbol

I was going to add it to the list, but I'm not sure whether to describe it as a U or a horseshoe. Does anyone else actually know which it is? αγδεε(τ) 01:18, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Well, both really. :) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 16:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Links to pages about numbers?

I don't understand. Why do we need those? I'm removing the links. Not pertinent to the article. Ambush Commander 20:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

As it says on the page, "All expansion sets, and all core sets Sixth Edition and afterwards, are identified by an expansion symbol printed on the right side of cards, below the art and above the text box." Core sets starting with Sixth Edition gained expansion symbols; Sixth Edition used a Roman numeral; the sets afterwards have used Arabic numerals. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:55, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering Sets Project

How about doing an article about every Magic set? That's what I'm going to do. Some help is needed though. See User:Grue/MTGSets for more information. Grue 09:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unhinged under Unglued?

I don't believe that this is a proper labeling for the Un- sets. Inside several articles written about Unhinged that specifically state that although this set followed the un- convention to show that the set was playful, the Unhinged set should be regarded as a seperate entity from Unglued.

Why is it called Unhinged and not Unglued II?

Because this set is more than merely an extension of Unglued, we felt it deserved to have its own identity. The "un" naming convention was used to convey that the set will follow in the playful, break-the-rules spirit of Unglued.

Furthermore, the Card Set page does not group Unglued and Unhinged together. They're all lumped together and a section called Special Sets, which are seperate. At the very least they should be labled "Joke Sets" or perhaps simply "Special Sets" and Vanguard among others should be added.

--User:Ambush Commander

• Makes sense. Had I noticed they were both under "Unglued", I would've made the change myself. However, I agree with naming the group "Special Sets" and including Vanguard. In that case, though, what else should be added under that category? Chronicles and Renaissance don't really seem like they each deserve an individual article so should they be merged together and included under "Special Sets"? Or, as they're tournament-legal, should they be under yet another category? At any rate, I don't think the change was especially "controversial". Good move. — αγδεε(τ) 03:04, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Chronicles should not be moved away from where it currently is. The reason is that it is DCI-sanctioned-tournament-legal, so it should be kept with the other tournament legal sets. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Also, regarding Unglued: see the Wizards page for Unhinged [2], wherein Unhinged is referred to as the "Unglued expansion". The quote given above about Unhinged having a separate identity: yes, it does have a separate identity, in the sense that each set, even within a block, has a separate identity. However, in most players' minds, Unglued and Unhinged are very much associated. The term "joke sets" looks unprofessional in an encyclopedia, and Unglued and Unhinged are often mixed together when people play. Thus, I am restoring the heading. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just a few more words to what I'm saying: the three Portal sets are not, technically speaking, a "block". But they are associated, which is why they are grouped together. Notice that the word "block" is not used in the heading, the way it is in the heading of Odyssey block, for example. For the same reason, it's okay to group Unglued and Unhinged together under Unglued; the heading doesn't use the word "block". Also, just think about it this way: when someone who's been away from MTG for a few years asks what this new set Unhinged is that they're hearing so much about, what's the simplest, clearest, and most common way people answer? Yeah, with the two words "Unglued II." —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:41, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I can see where you are coming from. Would Un- Sets still be unprofessional? Because even though Joke Sets may not be the best term to describe them, I don't believe listing them under Unglued is valid. Furthermore, we should actually restructure the page so that we have two extra sets: Starter Sets and Special Sets, in my opinion, in order to accurately portray the sets. And considering the former MTG player, I think that the Un- naming convention is more than enough to indicate to them that these two sets are similar, and if we group them together, the distinction will be clear enough to make the association. I'm not reverting it back for the time being though. Ambush Commander 03:29, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Portal is Legal Under DCI starting 10/20/05

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/resources/sfrvintage

The above URL explains it all.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Janssenstudios (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2005

Expansion symbols

Is there some reason we don't have graphics of each set's expansion symbol? It seems like a really easy change to make, and quite clearly under fair-use as far as copyright issues go. --Khaim 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure myself, but it makes sense to have it. I guess the only way to find out is to upload all of the set symbols and try to use them, and see who gets angry :) --habitue 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

They're all already uploaded on the respective page for each set, they'd just need to be linked. Last time this was brought up at the wikiproject, it was mentioned that on the set page it was probably fair use, anywhere it probably wasn't. I think a page giving an overview of all sets would be appropriate, especially to someone trying to figure out what symbol goes where. (I would also argue that the template listing all the sets could use them too, but maybe that's overboard.) -- Norvy (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Symbols for alpha, beta, unlimited, 3e, and 4e

The symbols should be removed claiming to represent alpha, beta, unlimited, Third Edition, and Fourth Edition. None of those symbols are on the cards. Tempshill 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They're the symbols Wizards of the Coast uses to identify the sets and cards in them, and are designated as the official expansion symbols. The fact that they weren't actually on the cards is irrelevant.-Polotet 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask Wizards again

Wikipedia got hit at Ask Wizards again, this time for this article on October 31st. -- saberwyn 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Future Sight Symbol

Revealed Future Sight's logo and symbol. But it's the rare (gold) version, how to get the common (black) one? 201.50.157.246 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't. Wizards of the Coast hasn't released the common and uncommon versions yet. —Lowellian (reply) 04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for image of boxes or booster packs from various expansions

Does anyone own a whole bunch of boxes or unopened booster packs from various expansions? If so, could you take a picture a bunch of those boxes or unopened booster packs and then upload it to Wikipedia and release it under an appropriate license? See http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/mtgcom/fcpics/limited/nw17_packs.jpg for an example image of what I'm talking about (I don't think Wikipedia can use that specific picture because of the copyright status). I think such a picture could greatly improve this article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Planar Chaos symbol

The article states it represents a "tilted hourglass, Möbius strip, or stylized letters "PC"". Which is it? Certainly not all three. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not all three? From what I understand, it's intentional on Wizards of the Coast's part, a sort of visual pun, a visual triple entendre. Remember how the Visions expansion symbol was both a letter "V" (for Visions) and the Zhalfirin Triangle of War? To quote Brady Dommermuth on http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006: "The Triangle of War, a Zhalfirin symbol, inset with a “V” for Visions." —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I myself am having trouble seeing it as any of the three representations, as they're all a bit of a stretch. If you can find a citation that calls it all three, then I'll be satisfied. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Promo Cards, Token Cards, Etc.

Hopefully there will be a section for promo cards, token cards, etc. some day. Some of these even have their own unique expansion symbols. --67.185.130.125 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to add them to a different article; they're not "sets" after all. —Lowellian (reply) 02:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use overuse

This article has one of the largest collections of fair-use images anywhere on Wikipedia. It's important with fair-use images that we keep their use to a minimum. Here, I think there is a little room for that: do we really have to have every color of every expansion symbol ever used? I don't see the encyclopedic value in that. The purple hourglass from Time Spiral is one thing, that was special and unique. And we should probably give at least one example of the three different colors for a single symbol, but having them for every expansion serves no purpose. (And fwiw, I think if we were to keep only the black one that would be best - that's the one that is most easily visible anyway). Mangojuice^talk 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black removed ALL expansion symbol images from this page on June 19. I think that is going too far. What do other people think? —Lowellian (reply) 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The images were not free images, and were not the subject of significant commentary. I don't fall on the side of the line that disallows using a logo in a product's own page, since I feel it's critical for identification, but it isn't necessary for identification and isn't a subject of commentary here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the silver/gold images and leaving the black ones? There needs to be at least one symbol for product identification. —Lowellian (reply) 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there doesn't. The single image for identification is in each game's article. There's little need to have a gallery of non-free images here, especially since we can describe the images with free text. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a list of products. Each product needs to be identified. I could see an argument for not having three images, but there needs to be at least a minimum of one. —Lowellian (reply) 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to work toward a compromise here; formerly, there were three logo images per set; now the page is reduced to the minimum one that identifies each set. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For an image to be fair-use, it has to contribute significantly to the article. These logos contribute significantly by identifying the subjects of the article. —Lowellian (reply) 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do read WP:FUC. Each set doesn't need to be identified with a non-free image in this article. The compromise is allowing a card image to illustrate a typical set symbol, instead of no non-free images at all. Even if a single image was allowable to identify things on this list, none of the individual members of this list are the subject of significant commentary in this article.

There isn't a compromise between what WP:FUC allows and something more than that. WP:FUC is the compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the policy many times by now. These images fulfill all the requirements set forth by fair use. The difference is that you seem to think that the images make no significant contribution, while I and others do think they make a significant contribution. You are misinterpreting WP:FUC. —Lowellian (reply) 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They fail the policy outright. There is no critical commentary in the article at all, which means no image makes a significant contribution, so only free images are allowed. They were making the same contribution that screenshots were to episode lists. Not only were those removed but the standard template for episode lists no longer has an image field. Jay32183 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:FUC is it stated that "critical commentary" is required by fair use. You are thus inserting words into the policy that are simply not there. The policy does state that images must make a significant contribution. These set symbol images are vital for identifying the sets in a way that text cannot do (as User:Temporarily Insane explains below more eloquently than I) and therefore make a significant contribution that "increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" and that is more than merely decorative. —Lowellian (reply) 11:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised you left the image in the lead. There isn't anything in the article that would require a non-free image at all. Relative positioning on a card can be demonstrated without using any copyrighted artwork, logos, or text. Jay32183 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion on this same topic, I brought up the question of why we even need this page when we have Category:Magic: The Gathering sets. I believe one of the reasons was the comparison of the different aspects of each set, which does not appear on the category page. Having one symbol per set achieves this purpose. This is why I think one per set (not including the lead) is what it should be. Not three, as I said in that discussion, and not zero. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as the article stands now [3], each set's expansion symbol is described in words. Well, Arabian Nights's expansion symbol is not the phrase "a scimitar" but Image:Exp_sym_arabian.gif. While the symbol is a scimitar, as stated, the phrase is insufficient to identify what the set's expansion symbol actually is. What better way to describe the symbol than to actually show it? Besides, "the symbol of the Coalition" for Invasion, "Yawgmoth's crying mask" for Apocalypse, and "the seal of the Guildpact" for Guildpact (among others) are not helpful for imagining the symbol. If I brought a non-Magic person to this page they would have no idea what those descriptions mean. The symbols at least help them picture "the globe of Ulgrotha," which they likely haven't seen or heard of before. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we're stretching Fair Use, right? Sorry if I'm not well-versed in copyright policies, but if the images were released so it was certain they were acceptable to be used, it would be fine? I don't know how to go about that or if it's at all likely, but if employees use Wikipedia for their own articles and such on the website, including this list, one would think they'd respond well.

I can understand how, if we're using the images as, more or less, "gifts," that we shouldn't overdo it, because they aren't essential to the article. While not mandatory, however, you can't deny that they add something to it that can't be replaced with text. The usefulness, of course, is what you're discussing. - Boss1000 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast will never the release the images as public domain or a free content license. So the only way is to rely on fair use, which is perfectly fine; there is no "stretching of fair use" because these images easily fulfill the fair use requirements, as has been explained in the comments above. —Lowellian (reply) 11:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding on a few points...

• Identification of something has generally been held to not contribute significantly to an article. Thus, pure identification purposes fails our fair use guidelines.
• It has been the case in past debates regarding the application of this policy that people have been accused of misinterpreting policy, or attempting to implement their own interpretation of it. This hasn't affected the debate. The interpretation is correct in this case. Fair use must be minimal. At one point, this article had 133 fair use images on it. There's no possible way that could be construed as 'minimal'.
• This case is little different than lists of episodes, and discographies, from which fair use images are being removed everywhere. Sub articles exist for these sets. Use the fair use images there if you must, not in this gallery.

In sum, those of you opposed to this removal should read User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. The application of the policy is correct here, and the mass of fair use images will remain off the page. Thank you, --Durin 15:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with your first bullet point in this case: "Identification of something has generally been held to not contribute significantly to an article. Thus, pure identification purposes fails our fair use guidelines." Bluntly, in this case, the identification does "contribute significantly" to this article. A screenshot from an episode of a television series? Okay, that's decorative. However, set logos are tied much more intimately to each set than album covers are to albums; they are on each and every card as the symbol as to which set it belongs to. A person picking up a pile of unsorted Magic cards will have no other way of identifying what set one is from aside from the logo, and many older cards aren't commonly seen in their named packs anymore due to sealed packs being out of print. This article is noticeably worse without an easy glance at the evolution of set symbols and which set they are associated with. It meets the criteria.

I stated my position in the earlier featured list debate and won't go over it here, but if we want to use just one image per set, that would be fine. I would object to complete removal, however. SnowFire 22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can argue this at length if you like. Regardless, 133 fair use images can not be construed as 'minimal' use. The fair use images as used previously will remain off the article. --Durin 15:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So... proof by assertion, eh? I'd prefer to discuss this rather than edit war, but this isn't giving much to go off of. Also, as has been stated many times, actual number of images is an extremely misleading number. Theoretically, if we made one banner image with all the symbols, it'd only be one fair use image, but would that be better in any reasonable way than the small images? And anyway, you'll note that most people here are willing to compromise. Only the common symbols would be considerably less than 133 - more like ~55 or so, I'd guess. Not that image counting matters.

So... does anyone want to dispute the line of argument taken by Lowellian and Temporarily Insane above? AMiB is correct when he says that "Each set doesn't need a non-free image in this article," but that is not the standard. Wikipedia doesn't "need" any images at all, free or not free. Images can, however, "contribute significantly" to articles, and I believe that standard is met here. SnowFire 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think AMIB is correct in saying the images aren't needed then you must also agree that they are not allowed. Non-free content may only be used when necessary. Free content can be used simply because it's cool and relevant. Jay32183 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay, from what I've read of your comments, you seem to be in the "fair use should be removed entirely" camp. Fine, but that's a policy issue and not something local to this article (and apologies if that is not in fact your position; my memory may be faulty). If the criteria was in fact necessity, then all fair use content would be removed. Criteria 8 says: "Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." Note the use of the word "normally" in the restriction on lists. I and the others are asserting that 1) This is a significant contribution where words are inadequate and 2) This is a reasonable exception to the general rule on lists. SnowFire 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The same arguments have been repeated elsewhere on other articles where such removals have occurred. The removals took place anyway, and the images remain removed. If you want to convince anyone that the images should stay, you're going to have to come up with a better argument. --Durin 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened at other articles, but these images do seem to meet policy's critiera, even if others didn't. And yes, I've read your essay on the topic. Question: under what circumstances do you think that an identification fair use rationale would be appropriate for a navigational list? Or would you be in favor of replacing the "normally" with "always" in the cited guideline? SnowFire 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The images remain removed for now because we don't want to get into a revert war. That's why we're discussing this. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to add another example to this discussion: a recent edit of this article changed the Lorwyn symbol to be "a leaf, wing, or flame." Now, this is a description based on the speculation of what the symbol represents, from the Arcana that revealed the symbol. Now, the Wizards forum is not a notable source, so this addition is unsourced, but the symbol itself comes from the official source. Would it not be a better guide to what the symbol is than the symbol itself? And let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about what it is (at least until Wizards says what it's supposed to be)? Just the words "leaf, wing, or flame" conjure something probably very different from what the symbol actually is. By using the symbol, we eliminate ambiguity, and this article becomes more complete than without it. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The symbols are very useful for the article, in order to identify a card. I have been using the symbols a lot recently becuase it tells you what set the card is from and when it was made. This information is not written on the cards themselves, and trying to tell the symbol from a description is difficult to say the least. I think the people who want the images removed are being a little uptight. (Justinboden86 08:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

• And people who want the images to remain are forgetting that we are a free content encyclopedia. And I'll say again, so far the arguments being presented are virtual clones of arguments on other articles where this has suffered debate. --Durin 12:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out numerous times above why this situation is NOT the same as, say, decorative television episode screenshots. You keep repeating that the arguments here are the same as on other articles ("virtual clones of arguments on other articles"), but they are not. This is a different situation entirely. —Lowellian (reply) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The reverse can equally be said. --Durin 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was in one of the TV screenshot debates. The main argument was that "screenshots help identify episodes." In what way is that a different argument than "expansion symbols help identify card sets"? Jay32183 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting Lowellian, "These set symbol images are vital for identifying the sets in a way that text cannot do" The same argument was used in the TV screenshots debate (for example, see [4] item #4, and in the album covers debate (for example see [5], second to last sentence). Further, "These logos contribute significantly by identifying the subjects of the article" That argument's been used multiple times as well. I'm not seeing any new arguments here. This debate has been hashed out, in different forms, many times before. I've encouraged the contributors to this particular debate to come up with new arguments, because the arguments currently in use failed in the previous debates. Given that new arguments do not appear to be forthcoming, I think this issue is closed in large part because of the prior debates, and the arguments here losing there. --Durin 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, looks like I'm going to have to just bookmark an earlier version of the page. (220.238.238.71 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Trying to assume good faith here, but you're functionally declaring victory first and then noting that you've won. Is it just me, or is it obvious that something like fair use has to be decided on a case by case basis? Just because the last 9 defendants were guilty of the same crime doesn't mean that the 10th is. We have offered several arguments why the fair use criteria is better met in this article's case than episodes in a television series. Simply declaring them the same is not very convincing.

Now, you've been invited above to offer an example of a case where an identification criteria would be sufficient, and you declined to respond. Please do so. (If you can't think of a single case where identification would be sufficient, then you don't agree with the current guideline, which does allow identification as a rationale in lists, albeit rarely. Not that disagreeing with the guideline is wrong, but in that case we should have this debate on a policy page, not here- a policy page that does allow fair use content which is not replaceable.) SnowFire 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, by all means please do assume bad faith on my part. When you're done making assumptions like that, feel free to discuss this with me. Until then, --Durin 12:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are here in good faith, then actually address the specific arguments here instead of arguing in generalities which, as has been pointed out and ignored by you, do not apply in this case because this situation is different from the others. —Lowellian (reply) 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I refuse to engage people when they assume I am here under bad faith. Further, I have addressed your points. You insist this is a different case, based on identification. I showed above that identification only has lost before. This is not a different case. --Durin 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." Nothing in that indicates that identification alone is a significant contribution. In fact, the policy outright says that the use you are defending is unacceptable. Jay32183 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. That passage says nothing about identification. There is nothing in that passage that "says that the use [we] are defending is unacceptable." What that passage does say is that images must "significantly inccrease readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot". A single television screenshot is not essential, nor is it in fact particularly useful, for identifying an episode, because an episode consists of thousands of frames. A television episode is instead usually identified by its title, which appears at the beginning of the episode. Now, that title is text, so an article can describe that episode with text. But Magic cards do not have their set name written on them. The only way to identify the set is by the expansion symbol. That expansion symbol cannot be replaced with text. Therefore, the expansion symbol performs a significant role that, unlike the case of television episodes, text cannot. —Lowellian (reply) 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." I covered this in one of my earlier comments, that the picture is a better description of the set symbol than the description in words. As I said, "What better way to describe the symbol than to actually show it?" The difference between this use and that of episode screenshots is that a screenshot is not representative of the episode as a whole, as a symbol is to its set. Sure, while many episodes will have many opportunities for unique screenshots that narrow the possible episodes to one, there are scenes that may be ambiguous and cannot be used to identify one particular episode.

The best identifier for any particular set is the expansion symbol. For any TV show episode, however, there is not just one possible screenshot, and a screenshot may not be sufficient for a reader to make the distinction if he or she has never seen that episode. For different episodes, the best identifiers are the titles and plot summaries. With DVD sets, the titles are more useful because episodes are listed by title. For general watching on TV, most people won't know episode titles, but will know the plot if they have seen the episode. For several Magic cards, the best (and only) set identifiers are the expansion symbols on them. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The same arguments have been made with regards to album covers, which are obviously unique to the work, and to DVD covers. Those arguments failed in those discussions as well. As I said above, if you want these images included I suggest you come up with a different argument. --Durin 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They have at least gotten across the point that the expansion symbols are more important that pictures of episodes. I can think of a few reasons why they might be more important than album art or movie covers, too. Here we're basically trying to assert that the expansion symbols are just as important as the names. You buy an album for the music, right? Now, I'm not trying to assert that the album art is not unique, but when you hear the songs from the album, you don't necessarily think of the cover of the album. Magic symbols are on every card and the only way they are organized is by the expansion symbol on each. There are only 2 official unifying elements to an entire set: the logo and the symbol. The logo is seldom used, but the symbol can represent entire concepts of a set, such as chaos between planes (Image:PlanChaos.png) or morphed creatures (Image:Exp_sym_onslaught.gif).

Furthermore, think of this situation that has occurred to me: when I first started playing Magic around the time Legions came out, I wasn't familiar with all the old sets. I knew certain symbols (and aspects of expansions) alone, but not the names. For example, I knew that the set with all the color mixing was the one with the weird 5-part symbol. A description is not going to help here: Image:exp_sym_invasion.gif. I'm not going to say that you can't describe "crystals" or "tower," but the list would be worse without the images, especially considering that the descriptions are not official (leaf, wing, or flame?). Does this not demonstrate its importance in comparison to album art?

As for DVD covers, those can be grouped with episode screenshots, no? Some DVDs are television shows. I don't think of the cover of the DVD case or VHS box when I think of a movie, unless it happens to contain the scene I recall, which would again fall under episode screenshots. The only other thing on the cover is the title, which is at least redundant, same with album art.

And again I ask: how many lists have be cited by an employee himself? Does that not make the list a bit different, as well, seeing as how we haven't been asked to take the images down by the company itself? I don't know of the importance of this point, but WotC uses Wikipedia quite a bit for its website updates and hasn't complained yet to my knowledge.

Also, does the size of the image play no role in its being problematic? I mean, they're quite small. ...And if it doesn't, then why does the number? - Boss1000 23:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on image use

This is a non-binding straw poll on the use of set symbol images in this article, per Wikipedia's fair use policy. Feel free to vote. Certainly, polls are not a substitute for discussion. This is why this is a non-binding poll. Further discussion to work toward consensus is encouraged to continue above (in the discussion section, to avoid cluttering up this straw poll). —Lowellian (reply) 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Position A: The use of one small set symbol image for each set in this article is valid under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

1. —Lowellian (reply) 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
2. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Position B: The use of one small set symbol image for each set in this article is not valid under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

• • This is not a consensus issue. No matter how many people are in favor of returning the images they will not be returned. Attempts to do so should be met with blocking. The discussion has already happened for Wikipedia at large. This is a policy violation. This contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia. The expansion symbolys will not be returned and straw polling here is pointless wikilawyering. It is the responcibilty of those trying to use the images to prove they are necessary. No valid argument has been raised. Jay32183 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile about this? Jtrainor 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Jay32183, this becomes very much a consensus issue because proof that these images fulfill policy has already been provided. —Lowellian (reply) 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a 0% chance that the image use would comply with Wikipedia policy, and those who don't understand the policy just keep repeating the same arguments that have already been defeated. Jay32183 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments have not been defeated. You quote the policy and claim the arguments have thus been defeated. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are providing identical arguments presented for album covers in discographies and screenshots in episode guides. Those images are all gone. The burden is on you to prove that the images are necessary, which you have not even come close to doing. So far you have the image necessary to illustrate its own caption. The thing is, if you don't have the image, you don't have the caption either. What the expansion symbols look like is not encyclopedic information. Also, pointing out that your argument is a violation of policy does, in fact, defeat your argument. Jay32183 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on us, and and we have given the proof and met the burden. You are just not willing to acknowledge it. If a person stands in front of a house and closes his or her eyes and says "the house is not there," the house still nevertheless exists. —Lowellian (reply) 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, we've been pointing out that the policy specifically allows such images when they "contribute significantly" to the article, and the guideline pointedly does not overrule any usage of fair use in lists (just advises that it normally has not met the standards). Also, good faith disputes on Wikipedia do not end in the losing side being blocked. SnowFire 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." This is a quote from the non-free content polciy. It specifically disallows the use you are suggesting. You have been told it is not allowed. Readding the images would be disruptive and will, not might, result in blocking. You know you aren't allowed, you have no excuse, only bad faith can be assumed on your part. Again also, you have to prove the images are needed. We don't need to prove they are unneeded, you failure to prove your point is sufficient. Jay32183 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • We have proven our point. You are just refusing to acknowledge it. Also, I suggest that you read WP:FUC instead of telling others to read it when you keep misquoting the policy. The fair use policy does not require that an image be "needed" (which is a very vague word and subject to interpretation), nor does it ever use that word; what it actually does say is that images must "contribute significantly," which these images do. —Lowellian (reply) 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the problem here isn't quite that the page has a lot of non-free images on it, but rather that it offered zero meaninful content besides these images. Sure, it was a list of sets. But we've already got a template that puts this at the bottom of each set article, and this template could easily be added to the main MTG article. It would serve the same purpose as this entire article, would not use any images, and would save space besides.

A better way to solve this issue would be to add some sort of content to the article. If someone can add content like this, the article could stay around (at least, so it seems to me). However, I don't believe such content can be realistically added to this article without duplicating content from other articles or adding content that we want to avoid.--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What content do you recommend that isn't original research? The description of the image seems like mild commentary to me, but I find it difficult to think of much more to add.SnowFire 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To basically agree with what SnowFire said, the problem is that very little information has been published about these images, so any lengthy commentary provided would be original research. These images are logos and, as such, have the primary function of identification of products. —Lowellian (reply) 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same article I am? Sure it's a List, but it's a good way to quickly compare different sets in terms of size, symbol, release dates, and codenames. The category only lists the names. Isn't this the reason we have both Categories and List articles on Wikipedia? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Position C: The use of polls is completely unhelpful to this discussion'

Obviously. --Durin 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil, and whichever side starts the poll looks like they're trying to substitute democracy for argument. Since the opposition has not offered much in the way of argument -at least so far- I think a poll only hurts the case here. SnowFire 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the issue at hand

Since we are quite clearly going in circles here, let's restate this. Feel free to clarify if you feel that I have misstated the issue at hand. The fair use guideline is like the "you must be this tall to ride" sign at an amusement park. If a certain standard of relevance is not reached, the fair use image isn't allowed. The people against images have so far pointed out that earlier cases such as episode screenshots have generally not met the guidelines. Fair enough (with the usual caveat about the lack of binding precedent). They have also pointed out that the earlier identification argument was used before, and didn't succeed. Also correct.

However, the identification basis argument is not invalid in general. If a piece of identification is important enough and "contributes significantly" to an article, then it's allowed! It's entirely a question of degree. Now, unfortunately, the importance of images has an inherent subjective element. It's not like the height example which is easily measured. Nevertheless, people in favor of images have pointed out that the images here are considerably more relevant than decorative episode screenshots. Now, maybe they aren't relevant enough. Who knows. But this argument is perfectly reasonable and worthy of more than a mere dismissal. What we should be discussing is exactly how significant a contribution these images make, and where exactly the standard is set. SnowFire 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The inherent problem is that it is entirely subjective as to what level of identification constitutes "significant". No matter how many back and forths we do on this, there will never be agreement. Please remember that the default case here isn't to include fair use; it's to exclude it. We are a free content encyclopedia. If we want to include fair use, we need a very good reason why it should be included. No broad paint brushes allowed here, and 133 images (as this article had before) is a huge paint brush, one of the biggest we've ever had.
• Have a look at WP:NFC#Images. The majority of cases there do not state that mere identification is enough. Instead, most request critical commentary of the image in question. These are not team or corporate logos, and they are not stamps or currency. The closest group they come to is either cover art or other works of visual art, and both of those categories request critical commentary on the image. --Durin 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided some commentary as to why these images are more important than other ones removed at the end of the previous discussion, but it seemed dismissed with the only response being that my example symbols were removed under some rule that I've never heard of: "no non-free content on talk pages, ever". Where is that stated, by the way?

Anyway, I'd appreciate some arguments on my points above. I'd certainly switch sides if I'm disproven. - Boss1000 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Boss1K: They're not allowed because people could do an end-run around fair use requirements if they were on talk pages. Try just using a link of the form [[:Image:Something.gif]] instead.

Durin: Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of free content and replacing fair use with free items when possible. However, I also believe that articles on copyrighted subjects should be comprehensive, and that means using fair use - which there's no shame in. Also, while you have a point that ties and unclear situations should default to "no usage," the existence of a dispute should not veto fair use, either. If that were so, then people opposed to all fair use on Wikipedia could simply go around disputing each case, then declare that since there was an argument, nothing should be put there. In any case, hopefully we can come to a consensus; subjective doesn't mean impossible to decide. The general point is that there is a much stronger tie between sets and their expansion symbol than, say, albums and their covers.

I consider them closer to logos, myself. They're basically a much smaller version of a logo that is used to brand the product. There's really not a whole lot of commentary possible in any case - their use in Magic is also identification, and if there was an interesting design story (which I believe there is for a very few of them), it'd be more appropriate in the article on the set itself rather than this list. And let me add that most logos probably don't meet current guidelines in a list article, either(for example, a list that used the much larger text logos used on the outside of sealed card packs - an example). The fact that many people rarely see sealed packs and the general size of these makes them a chancy proposition. However, the tiny size of the set symbols, and their great utility in identifying which expansion a card is from, makes these images a solid exception to the rule. They really do make this list much better, and it is non-trivial identification. From experience, there was certainly a time when I did not know the name of most expansions even as a player; this is even more true of non-players and new players. Since the name (of the set) is not listed on cards, the symbol is what ties cards from the same expansion together, and a card of unknown set can basically only be identified with the help of a list just like this one that shows all the possibilities, and which set they go with. Thus, there is an exceptional case that identification is enough, and there is content added by having it in a list and comparable form that isn't there if the reader has to check each article individually. SnowFire 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• To answer Boss' question, WP:NFCC#9. Reading the non-free content criteria before trying to say what is and isn't allowed would be helpful. Jay32183 06:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think just reading everyone's banter put me up to speed... And I don't appreciate being talked down to. I put up some arguments, trying not to touch areas of which I'm not an expert, thinking my opinion will be valued. I seem to be wrong there. - Boss1000 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The people who are saying that these images should be deleted seem to be making the following argument:

1. Wikipedia fair use policy needs to be followed.

2. Therefore these images need to be deleted.

This is a faulty chain of reasoning and an example of a logical fallacy, because the above argument only works when a missing step is provided:

3. These images fail Wikipedia's fair use requirements.

This step in the chain of logic is missing, which is why the images should be kept. As has been explained above, these images do NOT fail Wikipedia's fair use requirements, which is why these images should NOT be deleted according to Wikipedia's fair use policy. —Lowellian (reply) 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• See my above comments. We'll never agree on this. Might as well restore 133 fair use images then. Good move. --Durin 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

133 images is a severe exaggeration. No one has been advocating that number of images for a while now. —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Category:Magic: The Gathering sets and this article, there are 60 sets with expansion symbols (including Fifth and Astral), so we would only be restoring 60 images (plus any examples of rarity...so probably 64). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• 64 is still way, way overboard. --Durin 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the current content of this article, the number of non-free images that can be used is 0. There is no way to write a non-free content rationale that satisfies WP:NFCC#8. Jay32183 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image "clock"

Note that there is something of a "deadline" on resolution of this issue. User:A Man In Black's removal of the set images has resulted in many of the set images being orphaned and thus tagged for deletion. This is something of an abuse of process: removing large numbers of images and thus forcing a deadline through automatic deletion of orphaned fair use images when there is no consensus whatsoever (as can clearly can be seen by comments from many users above, many users oppose the removal and assert that these images fulfill the requirements set forth by the fair use policy). —Lowellian (reply) 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only ones that are orphaned are the useless ones (the Gatherer stand-in symbols for sets that don't actually have a symbol and the superfluous uncommon and rare symbols). Those weren't going back into this article even if someone came up with a case to replace the set symbols. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that User:A Man In Black has the better point here. We don't need ever single rarity of every single symbol. However, the Gatherer stand-in images should be kept around until at the very least the dispute has been resolved. I suggest placing them back in the article until consensus can be reached, to prevent orphanage.--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the stand-in images at all. There's no possible fair-use rationale for them. They're not used for marketing, they're not widely recognized, they're not used anywhere but Gatherer at all. We cannot write rationales for ripping off Gatherer's design elements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that why their sets say "Set symbol: none" on this article? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New suggestion

Okay, how about this new suggestion? Only keep the common images; leave out the silver/uncommon and rare/gold images and and the images that do not actually appear on cards (leaving out the Alpha-5th Edition symbols). —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No. That's still dozens of images, and using the images in this article would fail WP:FUC #8, similar to the use of screenshots on episode lists, team logos on league lists, album covers in discographies, and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We've gone over that last point of yours many times already, AMIB. But this is actually the suggestion we were making earlier. Oh, and as I noted in the article, there were actual printed cards with Fifth Edition symbols. So, I would say put that in, too. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have gone over this. A non-free image for each member of a list, particularly when each member already has its own article, still isn't acceptable. It's not acceptable for sports leagues (where the logo is inextricably associated with the team), it's not acceptable for discographies (where the cover is often the only possible image associated with an album), it's not acceptable for movie lists or episode lists. This is yet another list of products where people are proposing that we add a non-free image to identify each product, and that has long been held to not satisfy WP:FUC #8. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports teams are not identified primarily by their logos, but by their name and city. Discographies/albums are not primarily identified by their cover art, but by their name, artist, and year. Movies and episodes are not primarily identified by screenshots, but again, by their names (or name of their respective TV series). I am repeating myself by saying that a set's symbol is more identifying because cards do not say what set they are part of except through the use of the set symbol. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic sets are primarily referred to by their set name in printed and spoken discussion, and set symbols rarely if ever appears on other websites outside of images of cards. (I've seen the three-letter codes used more than the set symbols; I guess MODO has that effect on people.) Plus, we still have the set symbols on the articles for each set, and can easily link WOTC's own guide to set symbols if we so choose.

There is no pressing need to bend our fair-use policy (particularly WP:FUC #3a and #8) to the breaking point to include these images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in spoken discussion, set name. On Magic-related forums, people know what you mean when you say MRD or SOK. But Wikipedia is neither a spoken encyclopedia nor a Magic-related forum. And while we have the set symbols on separate pages, that is not a substitute for being able to browse through the symbols one on page, embedded with other similar content regarding each set. And while there is an external site that has those symbols on one page, linking to it is not a substitute for improving the article. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Galleries of non-free images can be useful. Sadly, Wikipedia does not have galleries of non-free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, WP:EL#What should be linked #3 is exactly why we should link sucha gallery on WOTC's site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat new user to MTG who gets old cards from time to time, this was THE place I turned towards to find out what set an unknown card was from. The ONLY way I could do this was to match the picture on the card with the one from this table. Clicking into each separate page one by one would be stupid. I have a card in front of me with a symbol I can't even describe in words. Some sort of tornado with a beetle on top of it I think. How would I find what set that is from so I can file it away properly in my boxes? This entire Wikipedia page might as well be deleted if you can't have the images listed for the sets. 68.251.171.195 16:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you use Gatherer for that? You can just type in the name of the card there and you'll get all the details, such as current text, various artwork, and official rulings about the card. Jay32183 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should this article mention set names or set sizes at all, when this information can also be found in Gatherer? Because this is an article about these sets, and the article is incomplete as long as vital, key information about the set, such as names, sizes, and set symbols are missing.

I think that's the point that is not being understood. In articles such as television episode lists, screenshots are decoration. But in an article like this one, set symbol images are primarily information rather than primarily decoration. That's why these set symbol images qualify for fair use in this article. —Lowellian (reply) 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the exact same argument presented when TV screenshots in episode lists were being discussed. It's also the same argument presented for album covers in discographies. Come up with something new, or your just wasting everyone's time. Jay32183 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of TV screenshots argued that TV screenshots were only decorative? The supporters of album covers argued that TV screenshots were decorative, but not album covers? Are you reading what we're saying? If you have a TV show, you don't use an image to tell what the plot is, what season it's from, or what show. If you have an album, you certainly don't need an image to tell you what album or artist it came from—that's probably right on the album itself. But take any card, any card in general, and how do you identify what set it belongs to? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No the argument made was that the images were not decorative, they were informative. This article does not deal with figuring out what set cards from. There are really only two times you need to know what set a card came from, collecting and deck building. Helping with deck building would be game guide material, and collectors are better off using official sources. Jay32183 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Set Symbols Rationale

What follows is a rationale I have been working on recently to justify the use of one set symbol image (21 x 21) per set, plus 4 for examples and descriptions of each rarity. I'm not including the cards in this estimation because they are a good indication of where the symbols reside on the card. I appreciate your feedback on this rationale, particularly on minor things like wording, order of statements, and such. If you believe I have missed something, feel free to point it out, but please be able to rationally back up your argument, rather than cite previous arguments on topics which may seem to be similar. If you want to dispute whether we use those extra 4, you might want to start another section.

The rationale begins here. Current text can be found at User:Temporarily Insane/Sandbox#Magic: The Gathering sets set symbols rationale, or elsewhere, depending on the outcome of this discussion.

• The article Magic: The Gathering sets contains a detailed list of every Magic: The Gathering set produced since the game debuted in 1993. Part of that list includes, for every set, the symbol or a description of the symbol that appears on every card in that particular set and is unique to that set. The use of these symbols in that article is believed to fall under fair use under both United States copyright law and Wikipedia's fair use policies because:

1. There is no free equivalent for these symbols.
2. Reproduction of these symbols in this article does not hamper the ability of Wizards of the Coast, nor the ability of the retailers who deal directly with the consumers, to sell and market the product on or within which these symbols appear.
3. The set symbol is the most common method of determining the set in which a particular physical card was printed. It is notable as a primary method of identification of a set, and, as such, has been used in its set's individual article.
4. A description of the set symbol, while informative when used in conjunction with the set symbol, is by itself insufficient for a user to understand the symbol it describes. Many symbols depict people, objects, or places within the fictional universes of Magic and a description alone will thus be inaccessible to many users. The inclusion of the symbol eliminates ambiguity between any symbols which could be described in a similar fashion, any unofficial/speculative descriptions which may not be accurate, and a reader's subjective interpretation of a description. In this way the symbol contributes significantly to the article.
5. Only one image is used per set that has a symbol, plus four for a description and example of each of the four rarities found in Magic: The Gathering products. Any positive amount less than that fails to maintain equality and consistency. Zero images are also insufficient as per #3 and 4 above.
6. The image is used to illustrate a set symbol which appears only on a small portion of the card's total surface.
7. The set symbols are widely distributed and are visible in many places on the Internet. The copyright holder has historically tolerated such use of unaltered symbols.

--Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The contribution you have described is the utility of a gallery of images. While a gallery of images may be useful, Wikipedia does not host such galleries, particularly when such galleries are of non-free images.

Moreover, the utility of such galleries is generally held to be insufficient for WP:FUC #8. The images aren't illustrating specific relevant points; instead, their value is only as an aggregate gallery.

Finally, Wikipedia can still offer the utility you suggest simply by linking a gallery on WOTC's site, which offers no copyright problems whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be a gallery of images simply because there are many. But as I said in #4, each symbol is replacing the inadequate symbol description, and thus meets WP:FUC #8. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with A Man in Black. This use would not be permitted. --Durin 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are asserting that the gallery would be useful. That isn't in dispute. The problem is that it's outside Wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair use policy says nothing about galleries. What it actually does say is that must meet the fair use criteria. The argument being used by those against the images is that the images fail FUC #8. Yet you've just acknowledged that this gallery is "useful" and therefore meets #8, significance. So you have no basis to oppose the images' inclusion in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Round and round we go... Lowellian, it was also pointed out to you that a gallery merely being useful or relevant does not make it significant. A gallery of images that are useful only in their juxtaposition doesn't cut it for significant. The images need individual significance, not aggregate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have established that each is individually significant in that it provides a better understanding than its description alone. Furthermore, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY says the following kinds of gallery is not permitted: "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." This is not simply a collection of media, there is plenty of text included on the page, including a description for every set symbol! So yes, there would be a large number of images, but it meets the fair use criteria and is not strictly a gallery. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And if someone needs the image for a particular set, the images are in the individual articles. You're again explaining that you want this to be a quick reference for all the images, when We Just Don't Do That. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, no, that's not what I just said. I said the symbols enhance the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that WOTC confirms and links to this in one of their Ask Magic articles be proper validation? Also, this article was referenced more than a year ago, and no copyright infringement has been brought up by them. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006 DbishopNWF 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Wikipedia does not use copyrighted images by permission, because that permission generally does not extend to downstream users which destroys the concept of being a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia standards are stricter than legal ones. Jay32183 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I don't think we're making any progress towards consensus on this issue. Perhaps we should ask what other people think, either at WP:RFC or WP:NFCC? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Far more people (User:Lowellian, User:Temporarily Insane, User:SnowFire, User:Boss1000, User:Justinboden86, as well as several IP addresses) have spoken in favor of image inclusion than against (User:A Man In Black, User:Jay32183, User:Durin). At this point, I don't think consensus is possible because the side against images has no intention of trying to find it. The side in favor of images has repeatedly given ground (agreed to reductions in numbers of images, provided more detailed fair use rationales to try to address the concerns) in attempts at compromise while the side against the images have never shifted their position one inch and will not be content unless all the images are removed. When no consensus exists, three users should not be allowed to unilaterally decide that the page should be changed to fit their view. It's not just that there are more users opposed to the change (removing the images) than in favor of the change; it's that they are made this controversial change in the first place without any sort of consensus. Until the dispute is resolved, the page should be in its original state (that is, with the images). —Lowellian (reply) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policies, including our non-free content criteria and overall policy on non-free content, prohibit the use of copyrighted images in lists. Consensus does not trump Foundation resolutions, and consensus does not trump policy. Users found to repeatedly edit-war in violation of these policies may be blocked. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not trump policy. Everyone agrees; no one here is arguing that! The dispute here is over whether policy is being violated, not whether policy should be followed. If there is a consensus that policy is not being violated, then that consensus should be followed. —Lowellian (reply) 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog is a little needlessly harsh, here, but he is right in that Foundation-set policy is a "like it or lump it" kind of thing. I don't think not having the images is the ideal situation, but it is the only one allowed under current Wikipedia policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be in the same state of protracted edit war that some other instances have been. Apologies for being a little trigger-happy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lorwyn/Morningtide/Jelly/Doughnut

Mark Rosewater in his official article on magicthegathering.com announced that Lorwyn and Morningtide are one small two set block, and Jelly/Doughnut(which was also revealed as the new name)are another two set block, not part of Lorwyn block. I have no clue how to edit this page without completely messing it up, so, can someone please fix this? Forgotten hope 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's been included like this, but could someone please cite the article in which the name Doughnut was released (that being the most current MaRo article)? Forgotten hope 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment

This is a dispute on whether it is acceptable to display one fair use set symbol with each set. Each side has presented their arguments, but no consensus nor conclusion has been reached. 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute

• WP:NFCC states "The use of non-free media in lists ... is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable" I'm hard pressed to understand how this article is not a list. I concur with Quadell. Sub-articles exist for all of these sets. A cursory review shows the images are in use on those articles. This is no different than having a discography with album cover images, and sub-articles on each album. The cover images are inappropriate for the discography, appropriate for the sub-articles. The debate on this died down quite some time ago. I don't see the need to keep bringing this up over and over again. Nothing has changed. Those bringing this dispute up again need to keep in mind that policy can and does trump consensus (or lack thereof) and that the default case on Wikipedia is not to use fair use. --Durin 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• My fair-use rationale is above at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Set Symbols Rationale. Everything I have to say here is encompassed there, particularly the fact that each symbol provides a better "description" than the description currently in place, serving WP:NFCC 8. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see these images in the past revisions as purely decorative and thus does not meeting your alleged fair use. — Moe ε 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• In an article about the set (e.g. Fallen Empires), it is acceptable to use the set symbol. This is equivalent to using the Nike logo in an article about Nike. In an article about MtG itself, or a specific card, or anything else, it is not acceptable to use the set symbol. These should be treated the same as anything else, according to our Wikipedia:Logos guideline. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Same as Quadell, no not fair use for hundred of fair use images to be placed for decoration here, I'm looking at the past revisions and see decorations, not critical commentary, signifcant commentary or anything remotely qualifying it for fair use. — Moe ε 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Durin said it better than I can. The policies are clear as day on this point. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm normally hard-line against the use of non-free images, but I would think them very useful in this article because descriptions like "The number eight superimposed over three fanned cards" and "The symbol of the Coalition" didn't make much sense without pictures (and the latter still doesn't make much sense, but that's beside the point). Then it occurred to me that there was no real reason you needed to have the set symbols and expansion symbols in this list because each set has its own article. If that were not the case, I could imaging arguing for their inclusion here, but instead I'll call for the removal of those columns. howcheng {chat} 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New single compromise image

Wikipedia editors have complained above about fair image "overuse", arguing that fifty fair use images is too many. In response, I have uploaded a new single image, Image:MTG - Set Symbols.gif. I hope this addresses the concerns of those editors. —Lowellian (reply) 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not hardly. This is a blatant violation of our policies. This is just presenting all the sets in another form. I could just as well make a textual list, with the icons to the left of the text in the article and claim it's clear of fair use concerns. The only basis on which this image is being claimed as not violating our policies is because it's just one image. Well, it isn't, it's an image that contains 60 fair use images. This is blatant abuse. This is no different than if I took all Beatles album covers and created a montage of all of them, with their names underneath each image, as one image, and put it on their discography. This is flat wrong. --Durin 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As Durin says, it doesn't matter how many discrete files are involved in the images - all you created is a derivative work combining fifty unique copyrighted works. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed it from the article and tagged it as orphaned fair use along with disputed fair use. --Durin 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Echoing the above: it's an unauthorized derivative of multiple non-free works.. It violates our policy for non-free content in several ways.. by being a gallery, by not be minimal, by being a non-free user created work, etc. You can't play technical games to get around our policy. Just because you used one image tag rather than a dozen changes nothing. --Gmaxwell 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• We stand a better chance at getting each individual one back on than trying to put them all together in one. And besides, the major point of dispute is not WP:NFCC 3a, but 8 (significance). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale template nominated for deletion

Template:MTG set symbol has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 7. As I wrote over there:

The supposed consensus was that the use of the images on Magic: The Gathering sets article was inappropriate but that the use of the images on the individual set articles themselves was not problematic. There still needs to be rationales for the fifty or so images spread across fifty or so individual set articles. The rationale for all of them is the same. How is it better to copy and paste the exact same rationale fifty times rather than to use a template?

—Lowellian (reply) 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rock

Here it's said Rock will be released October 20, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.32.154.164 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that page says "Rock" will become legal on October 20, 2008, just as Lorwyn is becoming legal on October 20, 2007. There tends to be a week or two between release and when the set becomes legal. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Card count notes

Some notes on how cards are counted:

Firstly, in all cases except that of Champions of Kamigawa, card counts do count alternate arts separately; this seems a consistency issue to me, but it seems worth asking about before changing. Secondly, in all cases of alternate arts, whether they are included or excluded, this is noted only in a footnote; I'd like to include this information directly in the box (say something like "50 [25 unique]") but I suspect that wouldn't work well. Ideas? Thirdly, the rarities on Planar Chaos and Future Sight are all messed up because timeshifted cards are not special rarities in that set. I haven't gone and fixed this because I'd like some way to fix it while still listing how many in each category are timeshifted... I'm guessing that should just be a footnote, or does anyone have a better idea? Sniffnoy (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Set symbol descriptions

Could someone add a short description of the expansion symbol for the Duel Decks: Jace vs. Chandra? Also if you can give a better way to describe the Divine vs. Demonic symbol, please add that too. The JVC set symbol can be seen on the cards in this product page, the JVC symbol is shown in large size on the announcement page. – b_jonas 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to List of Magic: The Gathering sets?

Shouldn't this article be moved to "List of Magic: The Gathering sets"? I mean this is precisely what this article is and WP:SAL tells us to have it that way, doesn't it? Also the article's class thus should be "List". Otherwise great article, with some more work it probably could become a FL in the closer future I guess. OdinFK (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Seems like the proper title. The lede would need to be changed to read something like "This is a list of card sets for Magic: The Gathering" instead of the current, if the move happens. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. OdinFK (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we list rares for Arabian Nights, Antiquities, etc.?

Why do we list uncommons as rares for the old sets? All sets sold in 8 card boosters, Chronicles, and Rennaissance don't have a rare print sheet. Why do we list cards as being rare anyway? I know that they cards were perceived to be rare and also called the rares of these sets, but still there were only two print sheets. Shouldn't the Wikipedia stay to the basic facts here? OdinFK (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just the usual way of listing them now - U2s as uncommons and U1s as rares. (That was how it was, right? U2s and U1s?) You're right that a note should be added to the article, listing which sets used differing frequencies of uncommons rather than actually using rares, but I wouldn't suggest changing the numbers. U2s and U1s are different in terms of frequency of appearance, even if not in terms of what slot they showed up in, so it's useful to keep them separate; I think the right approach is to leave the table as is, and add a note listing that for certain sets, "rare" really means "U1". Sniffnoy (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find this quite arbitrary. In Arabian Nights you have only U2 and U3. That's not much of a difference and still the U2 get denoted as rare. In Antiquities we have mostly U1 and U3, but there are a few U2, too. In Arabian Nights the commons are everything from like C3+C1 to C11. What is supposed to be what? Are the C1 cards in Antiquities listed as uncommon because they are technically as rare as an uncommon card, well an U3 uncommon. My point is: Certain customs of sorting counting cards to certain rarities have evolved, but the only consistent way of listing the cards would be to list them by the print sheet they were on. I'm not here for a while and I'm not deeply into this article right now anyway, but in my opinion the way it is done right now is not a very good way to list the cards. OdinFK (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't realize it was that varied. I guess you're right, then, that we need to list things in more detail. However, I still support keeping the C/U/R listing in the main table, even if it's not technically correct, because, well, what are our other options? We can't really put the more detailed version in the main table, as that would take up too much space. We could use it to list the technically correct breakdown, but that seems redundant, and seems to me should be grouped with the more detailed breakdown. So rather than leaving it blank or having it be redundant, we may as well use it to list the official-even-if-technically-incorrect C/U/R breakdown that WotC gives us. Because even if it's not technically correct, a lot of people do use that scheme, because it is, after all, how the cards are officially listed these days, so they will want to know. So I think the right thing to do is leave the table as is, and add a separate table with the more detailed breakdowns. Sniffnoy (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and compiled a more detailed table. (Source: The Crystal Keep) However, I haven't figured out how to appropriately insert it into the article. Anyone who cares to figure that out, go ahead and put it in. Next to each number is how Wizards currently classes these rarities. (Source: Checking the cards in Gatherer - note Crystal Keep uses a slightly different breakdown, also found on magiccards.info, which I have ignored.) But feel free to remove those when actually adding the table to the article if you think it makes it ugly. Also note, this table is counting together multiple versions of a card in the same set - e.g., Feast of the Unicorn, which was printed twice in Homelands, each time as a C2, is classed here as just a C4. (Note that Crystal Keep uses this method of accounting when listing the total number of a given rarity in a given set - however, both it and magiccards.info, when speaking of a given card, speak of the rarity of that particular version.) Also note, I'm not sure what's going on with Oasis, which is listed as a U4; I'm just going to assume the counts on the front are correct. I also don't know what's up with various commons from Alliances appearing to be C3s (one version being a C2 and the other being a C1); again, I'm just going to assume the counts on the front are correct.

Set name	Common						Uncommon				Rare
	C11	C5	C4	C3	C2	C1	U6	U3	U2	U1	R6	R2	R1
Arabian Nights	1 (C)	9 (C)	16 (C)	-	-	1 (C)	-	19 (U)	32 (R)	-	-	-	-
Antiquities	-	-	25 (C)	-	5 (C)	11 (U)	-	28 (U)	5 (U)	26 (R)	-	-	-
Legends	-	-	-	-	46 (C)	29 (C)	-	-	7 (U)	107 (U)	-	-	121 (R)
The Dark	-	-	-	40 (C)	-	1 (U)	-	-	43 (U)	35 (R)	-	-	-
Fallen Empires	-	-	15 (C)	20 (C)	-	1 (C)	-	25 (U)	5 (U)	36 (R)	-	-	-
Homelands	-	-	25 (C)	-	-	21 (C)	-	26 (U)	-	43 (R)	-	-	-
Alliances	-	-	-	-	50 (C)	-	5 (C)	-	40 (U)	-	3 (U)	46 (R)	-

--Sniffnoy (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sniffnoy, thanks for digging this up. I think the information is better suited to be put into the individual sets' articles, though. The MtG sets article is overly full of footnotes already and the data doesn't go all to well into the main tables. I will put it into Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), ..., Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) in the next days. OdinFK (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Zendikar Basic Lands

Couldn't find this addressed anywhere, so my appologies if it has already been discussed. I think a note should be attached to the Zendikar listing of 20 basic lands. It could just as easily be listed out as 40 basic lands, and either way, a comment should be added about the full art lands, and boosters vs intro packs. Not sure how to word it though, so I thought I'd toss it in here first and see what others thought. - IanCheesman (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cerainly, a note never hurts and for completeness's sake it should be there anyway. If you make the note you should include that the full artwork is only shown on the full-art lands. The regular-size art lands are an extract of the original art used on the full-art lands. Also you might note that the full-art land has a regular collector's number (230-249) whereas the regular-size art lands have the same collector's number, but starred (230*-249*). Further full-art lands come from boosters, the others from intro packs, but I suppose you know that anyway. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason I asked, the note system currently implemented on this page is a little odd, and doesn't update with movement. I'm new to this page, so I don't want to step on toes. Do people want me to continue using the current system, switch to one that maintains order, or something else? If I continue using the current one, should I attempt to re-order everything so it matches how it appears in the text, or leave it as is.

My suggestion is to combine the notes and references in a different order, more like on Role-playing game (and many, many other wiki pages. Obviously, this will be a complicated and lengthy process, so I don't want to start if people are going to get upset. - IanCheesman (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I started moving things around and reorganizing on my sandbox to try an figure out how and what needs to be moved. Take a look and see how you like it (or hate it). Currently done just up through Core Sets. - IanCheesman (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Block block

It might not exactly be the best place to discuss this here, but: as i was browsing between the different set pages i found something odd. A lot of sets have in their infobox a double "block" mentioned. Take Prophecy for example. Shouldn't we remove the double block (sometimes Block, sometimes block) as i did with apocalypse?--Narayan (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Narayan, I have no idea how the Block block came into being, but it looks very strange to the untrained eye. Actually I cannot see why that should make sense either. Just remove one of the blocks (the "Block"?) whenever you see a Block block. If anybody really thinks it what such a great idea, they will probably revert your edit and then you can still ask them what that is supposed to mean. But in the end it's probably just an oversight or if it appears regularly an arifact of some bot action. OdinFK (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I went through all sets and removed al the double "blocks". This issue should be ok for now!--Narayan (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes to the 3 Letter Codes for All Sets

Does anyone know where these changes came from and if they are backed by some verifiable source. I tried to look them up on the wizards site but they're aren't posted anymore

retched (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean these changes? If so, maybe you should aks it on Sylver Sonic Shadows discussion page?--Narayan (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah those are the changes which I'm referring to. There's no reference to any Wizards of the Coast pages and I can't verify them myself. retched (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I can explain where these came from. These are the set codes used in Gatherer for the corresponding sets. Not sure if that counts as OR but it's straightforward to verify. I should note that if we don't use these, we probably shouldn't list any 3-letter codes for those sets at all - while "JVC", "GVL", etc., may be the "obvious" codes for the corresponding sets, I doubt you'll find *any* source for them; SFAICT those are purely inferred from the name. "DD2", etc., are, if not correct, certainly the closest thing to correct 3-letter codes we have. Sniffnoy (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I allready asked this question on his discussion page, but i get no reaction. --Narayan (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What Sniffnoy said is correct. They came from the gatherer. For example the link to one of the symbols for Duel Decks: Elspeth vs. Tezzeret is http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?type=symbol&set=DDF&size=small&rarity=U . Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah I get it now. I didn't expect the Gatherer to actually list them. Thanks. retched (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbols

I know this has been posted before, and it led to a huge, heated debate about fair-use, but I think the symbols shoud be put back on to the list. More specifically, I propose the following:

• Put the common symbol for each set inside the symbol section on the list.
• Provide one comparison between rarities using the most easily differentiated symbols.

• Show a common, uncommon, rare, and mythic rare symbol all in the same set, and explain the differences.

The Dispute previously has been that these images do not meet requirement 8 of the WP:FU which states that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, omission of the symbol is detrimental as the symbols are necessary for identification of cards belonging to a certain set. Omitting the symbols would prevent the full understanding of classification of magic cards into sets. One specific example is confusing one symbol with another. The symbol for Arabian Nights is a scimitar. The symbol of Mirrodin is the sword of Kaldra. How is a beginning magic player supposed to tell the difference between the two while holding one card with a sword looking symbol in his hand? Sure if he had both a card from Arabian Nights and a card from Mirrodin he may be able to tell, but that is far less likely. I hope I've made my point, but if you still disagree with me, would it make a difference if we specifically received Wizards of the Coast's permission to post these symbols? The convenience for comparison purpose is worth seeking that permission. -Kkh3049 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to explain the set symbols with an example with all four rarity colors and have all the black symbols on the list (instead of or with it's description). Many set articles already have the symbol (svg file). I don't see why not to use hi quality svg symbols on all of these articles and use the same images here (in a smaller size). Questions: How were those images obtained? Are they official or identical to the official ones? How can we obtain the remaining images? Daniel.ee07 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Introductory 2-player set

There is no mention of this set comprising of four 30 card decks made out of 4th edition cards but (c) 1996 instead of (c) 1995. It has 67 unique cards.

Source: http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities-introductory-set.html

Linkato1 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Release date discrepencies

There are numerous discrepancies between the release dates listed on this page and those listed on the page of the sets themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikegami (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, "numerous" is a bit unspecific. If you could add some information on which sets are affected we could look into it. OdinFK (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Print run sizes?

Can it really be, that no reliable source has made or compiled estimates of how many cards were printed for sets after WOTC stopped releasing the info? I looked a bit and didn't find one, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be out there somewhere. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it can be. Wizards of the Coast guards those numbers. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How on earth can they keep people from making estimates? --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

They can't, but nobody really seems to care. What does it help to know if Wizards sold two or three billion cards of Scars of Mirrodin? That should be the ballpark we are talking about anyway.

Astral "expansion code"?

It's not clear to me in what sense Astral could be said to have an expansion code, seeing as those are internal codes used by Wizards of the Coast. Were sets in the MicroProse game listed with expansion codes, with Astral listed as ASTRAL? That would explain it. Still, for now, without something like that, it seems like Astral should probably be listed as "Expansion code: none". Can anyone provide some sort of source or explanation to the contrary? Otherwise I think I'm just going to remove that. Thank you! Sniffnoy (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gatherer Code

There is another internal to WOTC code for each set. The code is used in "Gatherer" when an expansion set is chosen in the advanced search. Sometimes these codes match up to the internal code that is already here but not always. For example the code for "Apocalypse" is APC but for Gatherer it is AP. Would it be possible to put these codes in the table along side the other code?

Gatherer Code

There is another internal to WOTC code for each set. The code is used in "Gatherer" when an expansion set is chosen in the advanced search. Sometimes these codes match up to the internal code that is already here but not always. For example the code for "Apocalypse" is APC but for Gatherer it is AP. Would it be possible to put these codes in the table along side the other code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpfeffer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we not do so. These "Gatherer codes" you mention are just the old two-letter codes before they switched to three-letter codes. I don't think they deserve a separate column; if you really want you could maybe add them to the existing column (like, AP/APC) and add a note about how in some-year-or-other (Kamigawa, I think offhand?) Wizards switched from two-letter codes to three-letter codes. But I'm not sure even that is worth doing. I suppose you're free to if you really want... Sniffnoy (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

More on old rarities

So, I've been looking more into the issue of rarities from early sets. Based on this, I've made one change -- Arabian Nights is now listed as having 41 commons, rather than 40 commons and 1 card of basic land rarity. This is because Desert, while considered to be of basic land rarity by some sources (it is a C11, considerably more common than the other commons), is listed on Gatherer as a common, and thus, I assume, officially regarded as a common. I don't think this should be too controversial.

That said, I've uncovered some oddities regarding Homelands and Arabian Nights. I've opted for now to make no changes based on these oddities, keeping the page in line with the results from Gatherer. That said, I figured I should probably make people aware of these.

Firstly, Arabian Nights is stated by Crystal Keep to have 32 U2's and 19 U3's on its uncommon sheet; this agrees with our current numbers, since WotC (based on Gatherer) considers U2's to be rare and U3's to be uncommon (when talking about Arabian Nights, that is; of course the mapping varies based on set). However, checking the detailed list (which, remember, comes from WotC) shows differently: There are 33 U2's, 17 U3's, and a single U4 (Oasis). Gatherer counts Oasis as an uncommon, so that discrepancy doesn't matter. But the remaining one-card discrepancy does matter, since it's moving cards between modern rarity categories. Having done a detailed check, it seems that Diamond Valley, though listed as a U2 on the old lists, is counted as uncommon by Gatherer. Again, Gatherer regards all other U2's from Arabian Nights as rare. This is very strange, and it is quite possible that the correct count should be 33 rares and 18 uncommons, rather than our current count of 32 rares and 19 uncommons. I personally am inclined to trust the old lists over Gatherer. However, I am leaving this alone for now, on the basis that our current numbers do agree with Gatherer at least, so they agree in some sense with the "official" numbers.

The discrepancy with Homelands is a similar story. Our numbers say 42 rares and 27 uncommons; Crystal Keep's numbers say 43 U1's and 26 U3's, and doing an actual count based on the old list (which, once again, does come from WotC), Crystal Keep has it right. The discrepancy appears to be due to Sengir Autocrat, which Gatherer counts as an uncommon, but is a U1 on the old lists. This is an inconsistency; Gatherer counts all other U1s from Homelands as rare. Once again, I'm leaving this alone for now as our current numbers match the "official" ones, but I'm inclined to think the old lists are right. Especially in this case -- it is seriously unlikely that Homelands had 42 U1's and 27 U3's; that would imply that the uncommon sheet had 123 cards. Card sheet sizes in Magic have varied over the years, and sometimes there was an unused slot or two on the sheet, but they've usually been 121 cards; never that I've heard of have they been slightly over 121 cards (how would such a sheet be laid out?). It's even less likely when you consider that the common sheet of Homelands has 121 cards -- would they use two sheet sizes in the same set? Having 43 U1's and 26 U3's meanwhile yields the expected result of 121 cards on the sheet.

So, again, I'm not changing any of these numbers for now, but be aware, because something is fishy here. Sniffnoy (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's weird...I punched Diamond Valley into Gatherer just now and got rare. pbp 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's listed as rare in Modern Masters, but uncommon in Arabian Nights. (The current incarnation of Gatherer doesn't check whether a card was printed at a specified rarity in a specified set, but rather whether it was printed in a specified set and ever printed at a specified rarity. It's annoying.) Sniffnoy (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Amount of cards in any given set

I am a bit confused. On the official homepage, ice age is reported to have 373 cards; wikipedia claims 383 cards.

Why the difference? Can it be briefly described where or how wikipedia obtains this number?

For reference, here is the official link to e. g. ice age:

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=4&output=compact&set=[%22Ice%20Age%22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1600:C80:C2CB:EF37:AE16:EB13 (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Basic lands. If there are multiple printings of a card in a set, Gatherer won't count them separately. (I wouldn't really call Gatherer the "official homepage". It's the official card database, but it's not "homepage". This would be the official homepage, and you'll notice it reports 383.) Excluding the snow-covered lands, each basic land in Ice Age appears 3 times, so if you just look at the number in Gatherer, it'll be 10 short. You could repeat this same observation with any set that contains basic lands. Sniffnoy (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Zendikar Expeditions vs Masterpiece Series

According to the article, Zendikar Expeditions are not formally a part of the Masterpiece series. However, according to this page on Wizards of the Coast's website, the Masterpiece series did indeed begin with Zendikar Expediions. You should probably update the wiki page accordingly. --64.69.158.250 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome deck 2016

There are some new preconstructed decks called "Welcome Deck 2016". This contains 5 decks of 30 cards each. This much the webpage "Magic Welcome Decks". Wizards Play Network. Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved 2016-11-17. tells. The set has its own expansion symbol, and some entries in Gatherer. The webpage suggests that each deck contains a card that isn't a reprint, but it's not clear if this is true, because no such card is listed in the Gatherer. I suspect that the product has been released, because that page says "Release date: April 9" without mentioning any year. The tournament rules http://wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/files/attachements/mtg_mtr_10nov16_en.pdf indicates that all cards in this product are legal in the current Standard format.

My question is: in this article, where should we put the entry for this product?

– b_jonas 17:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: it seems like these decks are the continuation of core sets. The last two core sets (M2015 and Origins) have some cards that aren't in the boosters, but are in preconstructed decks, and are legal in Modern and in Standard as long as the core set is legal. This Welcome Deck 2016 product seems like the same, but without the booster part. So I think in this article, the Welcome Deck 2016 should be in the section of the core decks. – b_jonas 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: apparently there is also a product series containing preconstructed decks named "Planeswalker Decks", announced in http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/ramp-approval-2016-05-16 . I give up, I can't follow all this nonsense confusion with the various products. Good luck. – b_jonas 17:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ordering in the Expansion sets table

I was thinking. Currently the order is mostly chronological, except it then goes by chronology-of-blocks introduced. This is almost always the same, but misfires a bit for Ice Age. Personally, I'd be in favor of writing off Ice Age block as an exception not the rule, and just do it straight chronologically. Currently, the order is Fallen Empires - Homelands - Ice Age - Alliances - Coldsnap - Mirage. Going to straight-chronological would mean removing the "Ice Age block" header, and the order would become Fallen Empires - Ice Age - Homelands - Alliances - Mirage - (HUGE GAP) - Coldsnap. This is a bit more accurate an ordering IMO, and also puts Coldsnap closer to the sets it existed alongside at the time. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's revisionist history. Coldsnap should be after Dissension. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wizards made an official statement that Coldsnap is the third set of the Ice Age block. In that statement, they acknowledge the chronological gap in the block's sets. Additionally, Ice Age was the first actual block in Magic, thus deserves its own grouping in this list. I have undone the change described here, restoring the entry for the Ice Age block and returning Coldsnap within it. I have also updated the broken URLs for the references to this subject and added the one I mentioned above.--FireFox31 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nobody contests that Coldsnap was retroactively made the third set of the Ice Age block. However, this is a table of sets, not blocks, as the fact that unblocked sets like Arabian Nights & Legends are in it shows. It's more useful if the sets are in straight chronological order. Coldsnap had the design sensibilities of 2006, not 1995, and was played with Ravnica & Time Spiral blocks at the time. Nobody played full Ice Age block constructed with Coldsnap, either. It's interesting from a setting perspective, sure, but from a standpoint of "reality" (i.e. people playing Magic cards with each other), Coldsnap was a 2006-era set, while people DID play with Ice Age / Homelands / Alliances together in 1995, though, even though Homelands was a different setting. Setting just isn't that important, ultimately - look at Masques block, where each set in it takes place in a different location (Mercadia, Rath, & Jamuura). No big deal. SnowFire (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That said, thanks for updating the links to the WotC site! SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One additional data point: Look at the order the Wizards site uses here: http://magic.wizards.com/en/products/card-set-archive . Arguably we should be copying them and "integrating" the Core Sets into the list, but it's straight-chronological, as you can see - Core Sets appear next to the sets they lived with, and Coldsnap is between Ravnica & Time Spiral block. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• I see a few issues with the table as it is currently.
  • The prose above talks about the Ice Age block existing, as well as discusses how it was made a block retroactively, but no block is reflected in the list. In fact, a good portion of the first paragraph talks about sets being parts of blocks, and the very first sentence in the section notes that Ice Age is part of a block. Every other set that is part of a block is shown as such, and so the Ice Age entries are inconsistent. After all this explicit discussion of blocks and Ice Age Block, it is confusing to not see that block represented.
  • Each block is its own article (instead of each set being its own article; see Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)), yet here those sets are spread apart. It is more consistent to keep related information together, and reflect how block articles are organized on Wikipedia.
  • The list is not specifically denoted to be a "list of Magic: The Gathering expansion sets in order of release", so I'm not sure why it is "better" to be chronologically ordered than to be consistent in showing sets by their related blocks (which, again, is how they are shown elsewhere on Wikipedia, grouped as blocks, not separate sets).
  • Consensus has shown the three sets as part of the Ice Age Block since the very first version of this article. While it's true that consensus can change, 13 years of consensus is not something to be ignored. What has changed recently that we should now show all sets chronologically?
  • Most of the arguments above in favour of the change say that it is "better", or "more useful", to be chronological. Why? Yes, Coldsnap was played together in Standard with Ravnica and Time Spiral; but as this is not a table of Standard formats, why is it better to show Coldsnap next to those blocks?
  • I disagree with the claim "Coldsnap had the design sensibilities of 2006, not 1995". For example, Coldsnap includes the use of +1/+0 counters, which are definitely not part of design sensibilities of 2006 (non-1/1 counters were discontinued long before Coldsnap came out), but are part of design sensibilities of 1995. The same with Cumulative Upkeep and Snow permanents. Again, this would encourage a grouping with Ice Age and Alliances, not sets from 2006-era.
  • Overall, I don't see the arguments in favour of removing the Ice Age block from the list to be good enough to support this change. It looks like a change done just for the sake of being chronological, because chronological ordering is subjectively "better". I support returning to the established 13-year consensus of having the Ice Age block exist in the table. 174.2.23.191 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparency, I wanted to note that I came to this discussion via this forum post asking for opinions. I'm not sure it constitutes canvassing, but I felt it important to note. 174.2.23.191 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. It does count as canvassing, but canvassing isn't always bad, especially if it's declared, and if it results in knowledgeable people adding sourced material or finding real flaws, then it's all good. That said, as you pointed out in that topic, it really doesn't matter what X number of Internet denizens say in a poll; it's all about how reliable sources treat the matter. And... the WotC set list at http://magic.wizards.com/en/products/card-set-archive is strictly chronological, with Coldsnap after Dissension. Honestly, I'd actually be inclined to copy their style straight-up and "integrate" Core Sets into the list, so Eighth Edition would appear after Scourge and before Mirrodin, etc. But that's a separate issue. Checking a few other lists... Gatherer, StarCityGames, & Card Kingdom do alphabetical (not useful here). Magiccards.info 's advanced search sticks ALL of Ice Age block in-between Time Spiral & Ravnica ( http://magiccards.info/search.html ), which is a little weird. Not a lot of other great sources. Pretty sure that back in 2006-2008, though, Coldsnap would have been surfaced front & center on such sites, while Ice Age & Alliances hid in the background, for obvious reasons.

As for my own personal take, my most important point: Coldsnap was physically sold in stores and marketed in 2006. People playing the game and walking into a game store would have seen Coldsnap then, probably next to some Ravnica-block packs also for sale. It's entirely possible fans of Magic in 1995 have no idea what Coldsnap is (today), and people who were fans in 2006 are only dimly aware of Ice Age. Never mind tournament legality for a moment, this is what really matters. Additionally, Magic isn't like a novel series, where you have to read the first two novels in a trilogy to understand the third; Coldsnap could be played just fine with relevant 2006-era cards, and was. This is what I'm getting at: sets are most related to sets near them in time, both for Wizards of the Coast (design sensibilities) and for players (what they actually played).

Re your bullet points... as my two cents... For the comment on prose, yeah, Ice Age block is going to be a special circumstance no matter how the table is formatted, so it's definitely going to need some prose explaining it. Wikipedia article structure doesn't matter in lists like these; it's not uncommon to have a list where some entries have articles just for themselves, some entries are in a merged "list" somewhere, and some entries are merely text marking their existence. Think of things like a list of finishers at an Olympics event, or a list of television episodes - some episodes might have their own article, some might be in a "Season X" list, some might simply be listed with no link at all. For the article title, I'd argue that you'd have a point if this was called "List of Magic: The Gathering blocks", but it isn't, and is at the set-level. If anything, I'd think explaining the reasoning is even tougher the other way... "List of sets by introduction of their associated block" is also a mouthful. For "13 years of history", I'm a grizzled enough Wikipedia editor to have seen horrible vandalism gone unnoticed for years, so while you have a point, it shouldn't lock us down improving something. It is a good tiebreaker if it's not clear what to do to fall back on what was there before, I'll grant. For tournament legality, I disagree per above, but additionally, Coldsnap would have been a very different set had it been released as "Legacy only" and probably been down with the Modern Masters type sets in that case. Additionally, regardless of what WotC says now, Homelands *was* a legal part of Ice Age block for some time, and was definitely released after Ice Age and before Alliances. No matter what changes they might make later, that bit of history is still there. For 2006-era design; a single weird callback < things like the power level of creatures, the templating of Cumulative Upkeep, snow being used in a different fashion than how IA & Alliances did, and a whole host of other issues showing that it was made for 2006.

Incidentally, not a perfect analogy, but Blizzard_Entertainment#Games lists in chronological order as well, which seems right to me, not chronological-by-start-of-series. It seems more likely that there were people who played both WarCraft II & Diablo I, and another set of people who played Diablo II & WarCraft III, and another set of people who played StarCraft II & Diablo III. Still. I'm resting on "let's follow WotC's list" (which is not subjective, it is objective they use that along with alphabetical) and "applies to the player experience." SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rip the block names out of the table as single row-spanning cells, and add a block column to the table. Then you can see the sets in chronological order, and simultaneously see that Coldsnap is part of Ice Age block. Maybe make the table sortable as well, so the user can move all the Ice Age sets next to each other, if they wanted. --BBM (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I will make a draft of a table of expansion sets which can be sorted by year of release, by block, and maybe even by other fields such as set size.

Problems arise when we try to merge in the Core set table because we must decide which other sets to merge in. Along with Core and Expansion, do we include Beginner sets like Portal which were sold in packs and contained new cards? Commander sets also included new cards but are of much different structure than Core and Expansion. Pretty soon, we fall down the slippery slope and have to accommodate Nalathni Dragon by adding a row for its "one card expansion set" Dragon Con 1994.

While merging tables is good from the standpoint of data, it would hurt the article's readability by separating the prose from the table for each type of set. With the current pairing of prose and table, the overwhelming list of sets is broken up by explanations.

A sortable table consisting only of expansion sets is a good compromise for Coldsnap. However, its lack of block heading rows will make it look different from the other tables which still utilize them. Thus for consistency, those tables would need their heading rows removed as well. This may hurt the readability of the long Reprint Sets table.

Before we make such drastic changes to this significant article, more input should be gathered from its users and editors. What is the best way to do that?FireFox31 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I think we can safely exclude one-ofs like Nalnathi Dragon. For the Portal set, that's interesting, but I'd argue that at the time, Portal was more marketed as something like a "different game" that was an intro to Magic, but not the same thing. Different terminology, de-emphasizing Magic in favor of Portal, not tournament legal (well, not for years!), etc. I think it's different enough to exclude.

My main concern for readability is that this table already isn't very "mobile-friendly". It's fine on desktop resolutions, not as fine on cell phone resolutions. Adding a "block/type" column with the likes of Masques/Core/Ice Age/etc. is going to bloat the table even further horizontally. Maybe cut out the description of the set icon? Not sure. There definitely comes a point where too many columns hinders usefulness, though. (We could also cut the "Other card" types column, since it's only used for a few rare sets like Time Spiral and Eighth Edition, and move it to a footnote.) SnowFire (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thought: If we're actually going to reorganize things, this might be a good time to finally figure out a way of properly including "extra" cards. I've had to revert some edits recently where someone would e.g. add in the planeswalker deck cards for one set (but only for one set, so it would be totally inconsistent). A number of sets have had extra cards in one form or another, some of which have already been mentioned above:

• The "box set" cards in 8th and 9th editions
• The Magic 2015 and Magic Origins "starter cards"
• Planeswalker pack cards, from Kaladesh onwards
• Masterpieces, from Kaladesh onwards, and the retroactive Masterpieces that is Zendikar Expeditions
• Extra taplands, apparently only appearing in Deckbuilder's Toolkit, from Amonkhet onwards (probably only in large sets? we've yet to see)
• The Time Spiral timeshifted cards -- these are a pretty integral part of the set and so don't feel "extra" in the same way as the ones I've listed above, but officially they are a separate set and numbered separately

...and this is before you get into weird things where cards officially from one set show up in booster packs of another -- the RTR and GTC shocklands in DGM; the KTK fetchlands in FRF; and the (probably just uncataloguable; this would be original research, I'm pretty sure, unless someone else has done it!) "priceless treasures" repack promotion from the original Zendikar.

Some of this stuff is currently under the "other" rarity; some is catalogued in footnotes; and some just isn't listed at all. It would be good to figure out a uniform way of doing this. Sniffnoy (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Magic: The Gathering sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.magiclibrarities.net/193-rarities-battle-royale-box-set-cards-english-cards-index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.magiclibrarities.net/444-rarities-microprose-computer-game-cards-english-cards-index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226124130/http://crystalkeep.com/magic/products/fallenempires.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/fallenempires.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Topic/1078455446160_Meaning_of_Invasion_Expansion_Symbol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Unstable card count

This is a pretty black-and-white issue in my opinion. Where are these numbers coming from? Why are they more relevant than the answer WotC gives? Why should the card variations be counted separately when WotC clearly doesn't think they should be? If no source can be found for these numbers, they should be removed. This is a classic, classic case of OR where someone says "well OFFICIALLY it says XYZ, but really it's something else." Great, prove it with references. (And yes, that means that if we want to be real sticklers, it should say "216ish" for the count. I would prefer that over some number out of a hat.) SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You also have to look at what the announcement is and is trying to accomplish. It's a joke set and they're playing around with words and numbers. "216ish" is not a definitive number and this Wikipedia article's intent is to use definitive numbers. In the best scenario, the WOTC article is vague and inconclusive. In other words, the primary source is unusable to define what the actual card count is. IMO, you seemed to have fallen for the promotional schtick here and aren't looking at this in a logical way.

Yes, the set has an actual card count which counts the total amount of different cards. The total amount of cards in the set doesn't need a WOTC article to be referenced. In fact, you could reference the set itself, if one was inclined, which would be more accurate than a WOTC article that is trying to have its cake and eat it too. But probably the better option here is to ditch primary sources altogether and to reference a secondary source that gives the set a definite number. I've gone ahead and done that for you; it declares it as 268. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of Magic: The Gathering sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406065505/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/index.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406063112/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/limited.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/limited.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406061037/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/mercadianmasques.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/mercadianmasques.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408010902/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/nemesis.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/nemesis.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406051313/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/prophecy.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/prophecy.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406054259/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/judgment.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/judgment.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406064400/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/portal.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/portal.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406051733/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/secondage.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/secondage.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406070211/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/threekingdoms.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/threekingdoms.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061103125420/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/starter.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/starter.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104022716/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/starter2000.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/starter2000.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041200/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/beatdown.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/beatdown.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Zendikar Expeditions are not a part of the Masterpiece series

User:Leitmotiv The links I cited are gatherer.wizards.com and wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents. Please actually read them this time. KingSupernova (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, the very specific link you supplied says nothing. Please send me a specific link so I can actually read something of consequence. As stated before, I checked your supplied source before my first revert. Maybe it's time you checked your own source this time. A generic link to a set of more links won't cut it for Wikipedia, especially when we have an existing source that states the contrary and doesn't mince words about it. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, here are the exact steps you'll need to take:

First off, you should note that "gatherer.wizards.com and wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents" is not a single link. I apologize if you found that confusing- it's actually two separate links to two different pages. I have provided steps to utilize either page.

1. Type "gatherer.wizards.com" into your browser's address bar and press enter.

2. Use the search bar at the top of the page to look at any card from the Zendikar Expeditions. "Breeding Pool", for example.

3. Notice that it is not a part of the Masterpiece series.

Alternate steps:

1. Type "wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents" into your browser's address bar and press enter.

2. Open the tournament rules by clicking on the link that says "Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules".

3. Look at section 6.2.

4. Notice that the Zendikar Expeditions are not a part of the Masterpiece series.

Please let me know if I need to explain anything in more detail. KingSupernova (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at the references supplied in the article as well as the ones from KingSupernova, and to be frank I find most of this rather unconvincing. The most authoritative thing is probably the release notes and they state "The Masterpiece Series that began with Zendikar Expeditions continues with Kaladesh Inventions!". I find it kind of lukewarm in the context it is supplied, but at least it says something explicitly.

What KingSupernova supplies as references is in one case not a reference at all. In this case assumptions are being made from a missing link in the Gatherer. As for the Tournament rules you are making assumptions from the sentence "Zendikar Expeditions and Masterpiece Series cards may only be played in formats where the card is already legal." I understand that this sentence suggests that these things are somehow different, but there might just as well be alternative explanations. For example the authors might want to be very clear in including the Zendikar Expeditions, because of the later change of their status (if it happened indeed). The sentence might also have originally only mentioned the Zendikar Expeditions, then the Masterpieces were added to the sentence as the document was updated, and when the status was changed nobody bothered updating this part of the document once again.

I seem to remember there was an article that explicitly talked about the role of Masterpieces. However, the best that I could find right now is this article by Mark Rosewater and that doesn't help all that much. However, if you are really bothered by this issue the release date of MaRo's article might give you a good idea of the timeframe in which to look for a better source.

If KingSupernova cannot come up with something more convincing I would advise either leaving the article as is or adding a note that it is not perfectly clear whether the Zendikar Expeditions are part of the Masterpiece series, but that they are generally perceived to belong to it because of the similarity in appearance, distribution, and release history of the cards. OdinFK (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"In this case assumptions are being made from a missing link in the Gatherer."

I'm not sure what missing link you're referring to. You can look at the listed set and clearly see that it's from "Zendikar Expeditions" and not "Masterpiece Series: [whatever]". You can also look at the full list of sets on the advanced search page and see the same thing.

"You are making assumptions from the sentence "Zendikar Expeditions and Masterpiece Series cards may only be played in formats where the card is already legal."

You could apply the exact same logic to the sentence "The Masterpiece Series that began with Zendikar Expeditions continues with Kaladesh Inventions!" in the original source. That article doesn't state anywhere that the Zendikar Expeditions are a part of the Masterpiece series, just that it started with them. (The interval (0-1] starts with 0, but it doesn't include it.) You are applying a (reasonable) assumption to the sentence from the release notes, so please don't claim that it's unreasonable to apply the same assumption to the quote from the Tournament Rules.

I will also point out that Eli Shiffrin has no relation to the people who choose set names and branding, so I'm not sure why you're considering a rules article from him to be more authoritative than the official card database or official tournament rules. He was not making any sort of official statement about the Masterpieces, it was simply a sentence he chose to use in his introduction.

While not a citable source, I have directly asked the people who write the tournament rules and been given the answer that I'm telling you here. If you want yet another source that backs me up, I suggest you ask them in some public manner that can be cited. KingSupernova (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I know that the same logic can be applied in both contexts, and that's why I said that I don't find the release notes particularly convincing either. OdinFK (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I find your response a bit pedantic, tbh. Anyone who's been around Wikipedia long enough, knows that you have to have very specific sources to cite information in an article. Your rules link was generic and doesn't qualify as proper sourcing. You should know better; your url link should have been: https://wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/files/attachements/mtg_mtr_27apr18_en.pdf I'm not gonna waste my time fixing it for you, just because you lack due diligence.

As for your Gatherer link, it doesn't state anything journalistic. You're assuming a lot when you use it as a source for information and I'd wager that may fall in the category of original research. In some regards it is useful, but because we also know that it is an imperfect source, especially when compared to secondary sources, we don't know if the information (or lack of it) is out of date. Juxtapose that with the supplied source that explicitly says Masterpieces began with Expeditions, and I find your argument weak. At the very least, it shows that we should be looking for secondary sources since the primary ones at the mothership seem to be at odds with each other. I also concur with OdinFK, your assumptions are a bit unfounded.

At this point, we have one source that says Masterpieces began with Expeditions, and one where you are inferring they aren't. Inference isn't good enough. Until we get a better source, the article is better left as is to reflect what is said in the source - "that Masterpieces Series began with Zendikar Expeditions". A series is a grouping of items, therefore Expeditions, starting at 0 according to you, is still a part of the series, regardless of your interpretation. Maybe you should ask Blogatog? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A new MTR is released every three months, so if I had provided the direct link it would have soon been out of date. Anyone who's been around Wikipedia long enough, knows that you have to have links that remain accessible. Your link was wrong and doesn't qualify as proper sourcing. You should know better; your url link should have been: wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents I'm not gonna waste my time fixing it for you, just because you lack due diligence. KingSupernova (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a spurious argument. Either you find a suitable source or you don't. The onus is on you, not me. If the source is changing that much, it's probably not a reliable source to begin with and you may have talked yourself out of an argument. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If a source is constantly being updated, it must not be reliable? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. KingSupernova (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's actually standard practice. A reference is there to make it possible for others to check on where a statement comes from. If a "source" is constantly changing that is not possible, because the sentence/paragraph/etc that is corroborating a claim might not be in the current revision of the document any more. Thus if you want to use a constantly changing document as a source then provide a link to a static version, the version that corroborates your claim. OdinFK (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Just ignore the troll. He has nothing left to argue about so instead he lives to offend in attempt to save his ego from defeat. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Added Info

Added information regarding Collector packs. No table is necessary until Wizards of the Coast makes more of them for future sets. MtgLord23 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsanctioned

The silver-border set Unsanctioned (see [6] and [7]) needs to be added. —Lowellian (reply) 18:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks for the suggestion! MtgLord23 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jumpstart

Jumpstart is missing from the list

True. I'm not sure where to put it, though. Doesn't seem to fit a category cleanly. TSR was missing too btw and I at least added that. OdinFK (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I came here to make the same request - Jumpstart needs to be added. Probably to the section on starter products. Swimtheelba (talk) 1:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Double AFR

AFR is reported twice, among both core and expansion sets, with different numbers. 80.116.255.203 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous numbers

Hey wikipedia folks,

I believe that some numbers are currently not correct.

For example, Wikipedia says Aether revolt has 184 cards. I used to think this is true, but then I wrote a script that would batch-download all magic cards. Then I compared the number of local .png files with the number that wikipedia says and I got 194. Once I noticed this discrepancy, I looked at gatherer and it says 194 as well.

Here is the link:

 https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&output=standard&set=[%22Aether%20Revolt%22]

(If wikipedia does not display the link properly, simply search via Google for "gatherer aether revolt" and you should get the same link.)

If you visit it then you can read 194 cards. I am not sure why there is a discrepancy but either way, could someone else check too? Why is the number 184 cards for Aether revolt listed at wikipedia? Can we add sources to that claim? Right now I have no idea who input that number, but I believe the number is incorrect.

I assume that more entries are incorrect but I leave it to others to find out. Since the local .png files that I have show precisely the same number as the gatherer API listed above says, I will go with my own findings and what the Magic the Gathering devs make, but I wanted to point it out that the entries at wikipedia do not seem to be correct right now in November 2021. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:6 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the heads-up, but the numbers in the Wikipedia are correct. Aether Revolt for example has 184 cards as you can also check when you take a look at the cards themselves. At the bottom they clearly say #X/184. The confusion comes from the extra cards that Wizards put in Planeswalker decks. Ajani's Comrade for example is not part of the set and cannot be obtained from boosters, but it is in Planeswalker decks. It's collector number is ... 187/184. Anyway you might want to check scryfall or the various gamepedias etc if you notice a discrepancy. Thanks again for your help. OdinFK (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation - the explanation may be useful for other people too, when they see discrepancies. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:6 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)