Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Blue Fairies?

Fairies since the 9th edition set have been blue, and is well established since the Ravnica block --Nappidyne 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when have fairies been a blue thing? I thought that they belonged in green domain.

It started in Urza's Legacy, when they decided to go anal on the color pie over flavor. Since faeries fly, they got shifted to blue, even thro they are forest creatures and should have remained green. That was retarded on Wizards part.--Bedford 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV --Khaim 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Updates that Suck, and Official Artwork.

There's been a steady stream of updates from random anonymous users lately that have included information of... somewhat tangential value. The problem is, this article has reached the point where it's already over-complete, if anything. Often times the added information is elsewhere or just not relevant enough for an encyclopedic summary of the topic. This article is already long (note the warning whenever you edit); we don't need to include every possible fact relating to the game. These can be spun-off into the sub-articles. I'm just posting this here because if you see me reverting out information shortly, it's not vandalism, it's trying to enforce concision. I think it's still possible to eventually get featured article status, but adding bloat isn't going to help.

One other issue: Can we use Gatherer's artwork? I believe that Wizards is okay with using the small versions of actual Magic cards (they get annoyed at the high-res, large versions because they can be used to print good-looking proxies, I assume). After all, practically every Magic site on the 'net uses them, especially the ones selling Magic cards, and WotC hasn't complained. Still, I'll send a formal request on off to WotC just to make sure. A Shivan Dragon or Serra Angel heading up the article would probably be more dramatic than just a card back. This sound reasonable? SnowFire 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and good luck with the much-needed slimming process! Alex (t) 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the Notable People list off to Magic: The Gathering people, but that article is in need of some love. If someone more into the Pro Tour and the like than I am wants to have a go at that article, feel free. (Now that I think about it, I wonder if this even deserves a See Also in the Tourney organization section.... probably it's fine just on the bottom.) SnowFire 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please UNDO the latest edits on this article? These edits really do no help with making the page better, but rather removed a lot of very important information from the page. I have no clue myself how to do it, so hopefully a more advanced user can simply just undo the latest edit.Thanks. MrCyber 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apprentice and Magic Workstation

My recent revert probably deserves a quick disclaimer; I'm not trying to censor their existence, but this article is long and needs chopping if anything, not info that is quite peripheral. Furthermore, 222.153.125.49's content was inserted in an almost advertising-esque way, what with the hinting about the alternatives being free and earning store credit (from what I recall, worthlessly pathetic amounts, but details). We already mention those websites at the bottom with comments on how they run leagues and the like. I also think that bringing it up in the "Expense" section is the wrong place - if we were to bring up ways around the Expense, we should really mention proxy cards before even getting into Apprentice & Magic Workstation.

My suggestion would be that if we really want to have this information in here, we should just write up an article on them (possibly for each one, or maybe a "Free Online Magic: the Gathering Clients" article). Then we can mention that article in See Also, or have a sentence mention and wiki-link them when talking about Magic Online. That seem reasonable, people who want the article to mention Apprentice & Magic Workstation more?

(Oh, and as for the comment on the Pro Tour, while there is definitely relevance to that in Product & Marketing, all that information is already in the article.) SnowFire 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I think that

"the popular series of tournaments adds an element of prestige and weight to the game by virtue of the large payouts and media coverage from within the community. The system is similar to the ones used in golf, tennis and other professional sports. The company publicizes good players who win frequently in order to create a "star" system, and examples to which other players to follow and aspire."

just transmits wizards point of view unchallenged and with no alternatives offfered, the motivations of Wizards in running tournaments cannot be judged only from their press releases. The economic reasons for running the pro tour as a marketing exercise is the most plausible reason for the support of organised play, Hasbro is a company with a responsibility to shareholders not a charity. Many people in my area resent the pro tour because they consider that they are paying for the trips overseas and big prize payouts through the high price of boosters.

The history of apprentice and wizards relationship with the program should definately be included.

"While less functional methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

ok so if your going to mention that the "less functional" methods exist then you really have to mention the cost difference between the programs. If you read this having never played online before you could easily take this sentance to mean that MTGO is strictly better.

Oh, and no need for 'perhaps' this is the smoothest, it cleary is as it was professionaly designed, is frequently updated with new functionality etc. that is not in dispute. An artificial attempt to offer NPOV in my opinion.

The prominence of magic online over the free alternantives in this article is shocking, just because it is the official program of the company.

Mayby the number of people who use the other programs should be looked into, emailing the main leagues for their number of members, before you decide how dominant MTGO is.

The use of proxies in casual play would be an important addition.

Is a paragraph on the rancored elf controversy going to be added?

I think the alternative options for online play should be briefly mentioned (cost and quality difference) and instead of an article for magic-online we should have one article for all online magic.

I want to contribute constructvely to this article

-) dont judge me because im just an IP address ;-)

No, it's great that you want to contribute. As to your points, I think it is mentioned that this is entirely a marketing tool for WotC. For example: The DCI runs the "Pro Tour" as a series of major tournaments to attract interest. And the comparison to tennis and so on makes it pretty clear that this is all a scheme to get gullible people to think that they, too, can be the next Kai Budde.

As for Apprentice and the like, again, my suggestion is to just make a new article. In the "See Also" section under Magic Video Games, just add Freeware Magic Clients or whatever you decide to title the article. Then you can go wild with the whole history of that sordid relationship in proper detail. Note all the sub-articles here; things like Magic's storyline is worthy of inclusion too, just not in the main article. That said, I don't think "less functional" is unfair; Apprentice & MWS are basically glorified chat programs that happen to let you have fake cards in front where you decide what they do. Adding rule support is a huge difference. As for "the smoothest interface," I don't think that's referring to Apprentice & MWS, but rather other CCG competitors. I haven't played the competitors online versions, so I can't comment, but it does sound a bit forced, I'll agree.

The dominance of Magic Online seems pretty unquestionable to me. There are ~700-2000 people on at any one time, as a reminder. I don't recall Apprentice IRC chatrooms being nearly that crowded, unless they've totally taken off in recent years. That said, it's kinda irrelevant; it's just that I think that Magic Online definitely "deserves" its own article.

Lastly, as for rancored elf, that might deserve to go some place (Wizards of the Coast article, maybe?), but definitely not here. WotC has gone to court many, many times before, so this is hardly a unique thing. We don't detail all the random disputes that WotC has had with artists that are irrelevnat to the game as a whole, for example. SnowFire 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

hi, i was qouting

"While less functional methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

because i tried adding

"While less functional #free# methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

which was taken away

i completely agree that MTGO is by far the 'best' in terms of quality but the price difference is not included in this comparison.

obviously they are less functional but if that is the only mention of them then people don't get the full picture of the competing strengths and weakness of the different ways to play online.

"Apprentice & MWS are basically glorified chat programs that happen to let you have fake cards in front where you decide what they do. Adding rule support is a huge difference

there have been improvements from the old apprentice days, Magic Workstation has support for automatic dowload of the pictures and on the servers they host there are always enough people playing to get a type 2 game.

dont forget the vast majority of real life games are played without rules support

the most recent magic-league master had a $400 store credit prize for 1st

to be honest i just think that people should be able to get a fair picture of the main MTG online programs, it would take just a small sentance to cover that alternatives exist that while having no rules support or multiplayer are 1. free (including unlimited drafts) 2. new sets available as soon as spoiler is released.(in comparison to delayed release of sets on MTGO)

i think that under 'expense' this could be included

im not saying more people use the free programs, just that they are a significant enough minority to warrent attention, just like an article on personal computing wouldnt ignore the apple mac, so a sentence about apprentice/magic workstation next to the magic online one for balance, perhaps a sentance under expense.

so under expense i propose something along the lines of;

Some players who wish to play without paying the considerable price of obtaining the cards use 'proxies', buy the gold borderd tournament decks, or use the free magic software clients. An alternative to the considerable expense of taking part in the sanctioned competiive formats is the tournaments run by the magic leagues with prize support.

The prizes offered by wizards are mentioned and not considered blatent advertising ;-)

Heh. Actually, I do consider them blatant advertising, and was highly tempted to remove the pathetic comments on the high prizes offered. However, since it seems I have my hands full trying to convince people such as yourself that I'm not the revert devil ;-), I eschewed doing so. I did rewrite the History section on Magic Online, as you probably noted.

I'm not sure I agree with adding the comment on proxies. The current section is not bad, but it still seems peripheral to the point on Expense, which the vast majority of people fight by building budget decks. You also have to consider that the Expense section is concentrated on tournaments. We already mention proxies in Type I. Expense is not nearly as large an issue in casual play, since you can simply play people with similar-powered decks. That said, if we must mention the free online games here, as I said before, we do need to mention proxies as well.

Anyway, I wrote up an article on Apprentice (software). I considered adding the link into the See Also section, except that by all rights I'd then have to add the Microprose Shandalar game and the others in the list at Magic: The Gathering video games. Again, it goes to show that quite significant games aren't mentioned at all in the article, and heck, Magic Online is only mentioned twice. Remember, encylopedic summary of the topic; this article is still too long. More information is great, but it's better to spread it out and make it easily linkable. Anyway, I'm still considering where to link it up. If anyone wants to improve the Apprentice article, please have a go. SnowFire 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

just got to say Snowfire, i really appreciate your collaborative and engaging responses. My 'expenses' bit is pretty poorly written. I think that the various responses of players to the strange aspect of this game we love (that one can be more competitive just by paying more for better cards) is very important and budget deck are just one player response. The impact on the culture of the game from 'buying power' are very significant and in my area at least only half the resentment of netdecks is their unorginality, people often get very annoyed at being beaten by so called power rares like the infamouse jitte. Yes in many casual games especially with looser formats people can easily find matchs with decks well balanced against each other. But many 'casual spikes' love to play the latest tier one constructions against each other.

So basically the 'Expense' section is a good start but in my opinion could be longer to include non 'building on a budget' player responses such as proxies and freeware mtg clients (their seimi/quasi legal status and the intentionally very low res anti proxy gather included).

The Expense aspect in my opinion fundamentally distinguishs magic from other popular strategy games, not because it costs money but because money put in has in game implications. Compare magic to bridge, risk, chess etc. The cultural impications of mtg expense/secondary market are very important.

Sorry if this post rambles/repeats itself,thank you for your understanding and helpful responses to a very junior wikipedian.

Im back for more LOL i don't know how to do this myself or if its has previously been decided against, but what about links to www.magiclapoon.com and ugmadness.net? I think these comic mtg sites are very influentital (i could find the qoute from Adam Forsythe in a wizards.com article praising UGmadness)

PhD

Stated in summary of edit by SnowFire: "It is already implied in the article; see "history." It just isn't relevant enough to mention in the first sentence." We are only talking about three letters here, it not as if we are going into great detail listing every single paper he ever took. Hence it is hardly excessive to mention he has a PhD, when you also realise it was in combinatorial mathematics I think that provides a very interesting insight into the person who then created this game. So all in all those three letter do provide a very healthy benifit to cost ratio, probably much better than if any other three letters in the sentance. So if you are really feeling a deep need to take out three letters why not pick some others? Mathmo 22:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant, but I am utterly tickled by the fact that Garfield is a Math Ph.D and mention it as a way to sell the game- I was a Math major myself, you see. And I love combinatorics. There is no doubt that there is a relationship between combinatorics and shuffling cards.

That said. The reason it's not mentioned is because it isn't directly relevant to game design, and it's mentioned below in the History section anyway. As the edit summary of the person who originally removed it said (back on May 1st)- Removed Ph.D.; it is only appropriate to call someone doctor or reference their Ph.D. when discussing their work in that field; his combinatorial mathematics degree does not apply to game design. It's not an issue of efficiency; it's a matter of style. Do discussions of Woodrow Wilson's political career as governor of New Jersey and president of the United States refer to him as Prof. Wilson? Now, don't get me wrong, it is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the article. It is not quite proper to refer to him as such in the first sentence, however, for something unrelated. I'm sure interested users can scroll down a bit and see him becoming a professor, or click on his name for a biography.

Even given that, the reason I speedy reverted it is actually because you said PHD, not Ph.D. It looks really bad to have that right on top of the article. I reverted it to Ph.D for now, but that was to avoid an edit war. Please post here and continue the debate, because I'm still not sold. SnowFire 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You said "There is no doubt that there is a relationship between combinatorics and shuffling cards", then you quoted "it is only appropriate to call someone doctor or reference their Ph.D. when discussing their work in that field; his combinatorial mathematics degree does not apply to (card) game design". Do I need to explain further the contradiction that I see here?? Mathmo 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And sorry about the all caps, that was an error... I DO KNOW I'M NOT MEANT TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS!!!111ONE ;p

And you said it YOURSELF. "Shuffling cards" and "playing a game" are not the same thing. Suppose Richard's degree was in computer science. Would this make his Ph.D relevant to articles on Magic Online, but not Magic? That would be silly; even if Computer Science underlies MTGO, the game is, well, a game. Even if combinatorics underlies card shuffling, which is but one element of MTG, card shuffling is not nearly the whole of the game. The "contradiction" is exactly what I was trying to draw attention to. SnowFire 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To play Devil's Advocate, the PhD is interesting in that the game is in many respects intensely math-based, AS IT WAS INTENDED to be. Part of the reasoning behind the game was to introduce maths. Math is an integral part of the game. There's trying to figure out what percentages of cards to put in to get a desired combination of cards in a given hand or certain number of hands. There's maths involved in calculating how many creatures with how much power and toughness to attack with. There's are mana curves which are driven often-times by combinatorics, or probabilities. I know my green stompy deck was specifically designed to have most of my cards (over 50-55%) weighted toward the two-or-under-mana range so that in any given hand I'd have at least two cards that could be played with merely a land and a Llanowar Elf in play. Probably 75% of the deck was under 3 mana, and less than 10% was over 5 mana. I also weighted it so that at least 40% of the deck was creatures, and so that at least 10-15% of the deck was mana-produce 1-2 CC elves to ensure I got at least one in my opening hand (preferably a 1-drop Llanowar Elves, possibly a complementary 2-drop Priest of Titania, if I'm lucky also a 3-drop Titania's Chosen or Llanowar Sentinel for explosive growth in the early game). Probabilities and combinatorics are integral to the game, AS INTENDED. This game is almost entirely maths, in the long and short of it, ever since inception. Granted, new mechanics have been invented to give a wider range of play options. But it all still mostly boils down to maths. Toward that end, mentioning Garfield's PhD in maths seems relevant, since the game was geared toward the same maths since inception. Granted maybe not every bit of the game is considered combinatorics, but several large portions are: shuffling, mana weightning, spell-type percentages, anticipating possible top-decked hands versus current-turn-play. And other maths, perhaps not combinatorics, are integral as well to play the game effectively (not least of all how much lifeyou have, how much life your opponent has, how much life you are prepared to give up to achieve your long term goals, and how much damage you can ideally deal if your turn goes according to plan, and how much mana to leave in reserve in case your turn goes badly). That's just my 2c, of course. Mgmirkin 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Art

The Art of Magic the Gathering makes it what it is, we need to do more to display artworks and the legendary artists who made them.

Dfrg.msc 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The potential problem there would lie within the copywright of the artists. i mean hell i could scann the magic cards i got and put the pics up there, but are we allowed to that's the question. NeoDeGenero 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should send a letter to Wizards...

...and get them to let use their images on Wikipedia. Someone with a good scanner so that when they respond we can have proof. That would get copyright hounds off our back and could help in getting the article to FA status.

"Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials available through this Site should be mailed to: Legal Department, Attn: Usage Permissions Request, Wizards of the Coast, Inc., P.O. Box 707, Renton, WA 98057."

Can't hurt to try right? Specifically it would be nice to be able to use the 5 colors and the tap symbol along with the permission to use images of cards freely (then we could have a card showing what a land is, a creature, etc.) Additional, since it's referring to the Wizards site as a whole, we could also expand on other products Wizards is responsible for. Of course, that's if they let us. Don't see why they wouldn't though.--SeizureDog 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Already done, at least by email. They refered me to the Hasbro corporate office, which I considered going to, except then I remebered the 6-card spread already in the article and wondered if I'd been beaten to the punch. Also, by the time I got the response back, I was getting a bit exhausted at trying to improve the article- there's still a lot of nonsense updates in here as well as information repeated twice, not something we want in a concise, Featured Article. But I didn't want to do the reverts unless I had time to do the debates.

That said, I'll send that email off to Hasbro and see what they say. SnowFire 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: There is no update. Wonder if I should send an inquiry to a different Hasbro email account, because this is taking suspiciously long for a response (aside from the automated "We've received your email" one). SnowFire 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor edit, "Setup time" should be listed as under 3 minutes instead of 5, as players have three minutes to shuffle and present their decks before a game begins. This is in accordance with DCI rules. ChocoCid 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that "with permission" isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. It needs to be a free license, and there's a snowball's chance of that happening. Fair use is the best we can get here; fortunately there is definitely potential for that. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

magic wiki

hey, does any body know if there is a magic the gathering wiki in english? Bud0011 04:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope not. I hate extra wikis, they draw focus away from the main articles on Wikipedia, which is where we should really focus our attention.--SeizureDog 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But i was thinking of one that could have categories on flanking, flying and dredge. Each card would be categoriezed based on it's abilities, type, etc and then you can easily see the other cards with the same idea. Bud0011 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To what purpose, though? You can already search for "dredge" in Gatherer, and get a list of all of the Dredge cards. --Ashenai 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, i thought it would be a nice service to the magic community. a place where people can can look up info on an ability or creature type.....

There are better resources. In theory, a Magic wiki might be ok, but only in theory. We wouldn't get nearly enough people working on it to make it work well and it'd end up as another failed project.--SeizureDog 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

MTGSalvation.com has made one, at http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Main_Page conveniently enough. I realize this might 'detract' from Wikipedia itself, but really, a Magic focused wiki can delve into subjects important to Magic, but too minor for Wikipedia itself to care about.66.159.195.177 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have removed every unoffical site from the external links. It was becoming a mess of forums and podcasts. The guidelines state that we should only have ONE major fansite in the links. I think we need to discuss which sites should be linked to here. We should have no more than 5 links at most IMO. --SeizureDog 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

essential magic is a nice one. Bud0011 19:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not very popular, and is, frankly, a pretty horrible site (IMO). I'm against adding it. --Ashenai 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I put back the five most important links. I kept the Aussie and Brit sites as there were complaints about the article being too Americentric. True, the USA is more important than all other countries combined, but the Brits and Aussies can say the same thing, and this is the English language version of MTG on Wiki. MTGSalvation is the highest profile of the nonspam sites, and is a frequent source of information on upcoming sites on Wiki. The math and storyline links seemed the best of the rest. All the various Apprentice and other online versions should be spun off into a separate article.--Bedford 04:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Brainburst is more high profile than MTGSalvation (of which I've never heard of).--SeizureDog 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, im new to this since ive just signed up, i use wikipedia everyday and i own one of the sites that was in the external links (mtgcast : a magic the gathering podcast network), I didnt add the link nor did i ask anyone to, it was added i guess by one of our listeners because i guess they thought we were relavent to the wiki, i guess this is a request for readmission from myself (i think this is the way it works), rather than just been 1 podcast we have 5 or 6 podcasts so only 1 link would be needed. im not complaining that the links were thinned out but we did get a lot of hits from the wiki (and not just robots) so i guess we were relavent to the wiki.. anyway this is probably the wrong way to do this but o well.. Quozt 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant as a method of advertisement. On a side note, your grammar makes me cringe. Please capitalize the word "I" and cut down on how many times you say "I guess".--SeizureDog 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

no wikipedia is meant as a source of information, someone added a link as information I am requesting its placement back, as for my grammer, this is a "talk" section, there is no need to be so rude, I am not 100% sure how this works but one person does not have editoral rights over one article do they? 195.195.7.61 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello SeizureDog, I think it is highly improper and abuse of your position to degrade fellow posters not on the basis of their argument, but on English proficiency. It is also unbelievably offense and xenocentric to state "True, the USA is more important than all other countries combined..". I also agree with the above poster that by definition of Wikipedia, one person should not exert editorial rights over an article and belittle fellow users. I will be contacting the Wikipedia adminstration regarding your comments and actions. Gust0208 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"My position"? Since when did I have any position beyond basic user? And I didn't dismiss him because of his grammar, but because he said he "did get a lot of hits from the wiki". I think it pretty much sums up why he's wanting it put back. Even if it is in good faith, he is to bias (by nature) towards his own site and thus is not a good indicator as to if we should add the link back or not. And I might add that I don't think I was very rude, I said please after all. --SeizureDog 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"because he said he "did get a lot of hits from the wiki". I think it pretty much sums up why he's wanting it put back."

Kindly please do not copy half a sentance so its sounds like something else " so i guess we were relavent to the wiki.. " was the end of it, its not about the hits, we get hits from other places, its about the fact that someone added us, and we were removed without any discussion, arnt wiki's supposed to be a place where people discuss what information is suppose to be added? rather than someone just deleting a lot of links and hard work because he/she thinks its a bit messy?

Quozt 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"arnt wiki's supposed to be a place where people discuss what information is suppose to be added?" Bingo. They were added without discussion, so they were removed without discussion. And now we are having the discussion. --SeizureDog 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't go contacting the administrators immediately without talking it out first (see also WP:FAITH). SeizureDog hasn't tried to start an edit war or anything yet, and he's actively chatting in the talk page. If things go horribly wrong, sure, bring in the Cabal then, but this is waaaaaaay too early. Check out, say, Talk:Conservatism to see an example of the kind of mess that necessitates bringing in the admins, with looooooong drawn out talk page posts first and an active edit war in the article. This is small potatoes (and hopefully will stay that way!) SnowFire 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire, thank you for the link and the comments. I get a little boiled up when reading offensive comments. I will keep everything on the Talk page here and keep everything as civil as possible. Gust0208 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There will not be edit war since I have not added the link back, I was requesting that whoever removed check out the link and hopefully put it back, I know a lot of links are removed (as well as articles) because they are created by the owner as advertisements, but this wasnt, I only found out about the link from a link search in google, I felt SeizureDog's comment was personal, and having only just signed up to wikipedia and learning how to use the features as I go along, this was not a "welcome to wikipedia" more a grammer attack, yes I have trouble with grammer, but this is a discussion area not a published article.

but back to the topic of my original post, the link wasnt created by me, nor any of the podcasters on our network (as far as i know), the link was relevant, on topic, yes the site is quite new but its nothing to do with age, its to do with popularity, we have links from MTGSalvation, Magic Deck Vortex, MTGPlymoth, MTGYorkshire and quite a few other magic sites, we are the highest rated unoffical podcast on iTunes/podnova/yahoo podcasts for "magic the gathering" (when I last checked), I have to leave work now, but we can continue this banter when I get home. Quozt 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to discuss when everything looks nice. I apoligize if I came across as personal. But anyways, there are plenty of sites out there that are relevent and on topic for Magic, but we shouldn't include them all. We are not here to replace google, any further interest users have should be searched for elsewhere. --SeizureDog 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

so how come we are only allowed to include the ones you say? I see gust added magiccards.info, an alterntive to gatherer which has a lot of extra features that gather has not and you removed that. I dont want to sound rude but you made you the boss of the links area?, if its your section thats fair enough, but if not they why not see if other people want it removed.

A) We don't need redundancy. B) You didn't discuss it. That's what this whole thing was about in the first place. If you notice, I myself never added any links. I am only making sure there is an agreement on which links to use and that people don't just go in and add anything they think would be nice. --SeizureDog 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

B) You didn't discuss it. I "didn't discuss it because I didnt add it, you will notice that I never added any links, I was defending the link which pointed to me, and you made it personal,suggested that I only want it for advertising and suggested that I added the link myself, if I would have added the link for any reason I would have added a better description than "A Magic the gathering Podcast" --Quozt 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO there were not too many links on there, magic is a big game and deserves to have a choice of sites listed, like it was before, if we look about you didnt want MTGSalvation listed because you had never heard of it, well that speaks for itself. Quozt 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what has an even bigger fanbase? Star Wars. Know how many external links they've got? 5. It's Wiki policy to keep the count down. --SeizureDog 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What know what else they have, [1] a section dedicated to fan sites why not move them there instead of deleting them?

:| um. "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name."--SeizureDog 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added today (and now see has been removed) a link to the most popular alternative magic the gathering card database, magiccards.info. It is used by a large number of players since it has a much more robust advanced search engine when compared to Gatherer. I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind its removal. It is likely much more widely used than a few of the other non-official links and is very useful to a large number of magic players. Gust0208 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think magiccards.info, mtgsalvation.com, starcitygames.com, brainburst.com are the most important ones, possibly phrexia.com would be a good one, but I'm not very familiar with that. ChocoCid 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) As an additional note, "The Math of Magic", while probably not notable, is a very nice analysis of probability as related to the game, and should probably stay. ChocoCid 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-ordered the Official links based on notabilty; I think we can all agree that the main, official site should go first. That said, to prevent silly wars over which unofficial site is the most notable, I think alphabetical order is the only fair way to go there. SnowFire 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick run-down through Alexa.

• wizards.com: 1,989
• tcgplayer.com: 16,010
• mtgsalvation.com: 47,523
• magiccards.info:79,991
• psi-soft.co.uk: 645,198
• mtgparadise.com: 1,742,689
• phyrexia.com: 2,262,473
• kibble.net: 6,669,817
• mtgcast.com: No data

What I think should NOT be on

• magiccards.info: Why the hell do we need two card search engines that are virtually indentical? Maybe really anal advanced players will use it because of one little feature, but if they are that hardcore then they'll know about it already. The external links section is for noobs who don't know about the game and want further reading. Not for the advanced players who aren't really reading the article because they already know what it's all about.
• mtgcast: No data rankings and only 506 google hits for "mtgcast". And that's without filtering for uniques. Sorry, but that is NOT a notable site to link to in the least.
• phrexia: last updated on NEW YEARS. Besides, better as a link at Magic: The Gathering storylines
• Math of magic: It was written six years ago and is very out of date. Only very experienced players would be able to understand the cards he's talking about.--SeizureDog 20:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In defense of Phyrexia: I haven't even gone to the site, ever, but we need some variety among sites, which means at least one site with heavy story-related content. If there's a better alternative, then great, but we shouldn't remove Phyrexia until we can replace it.

In defense of magiccards.info: I also have not been there for awhile, but they used to offer high-resolution scans of the cards larger than those from Gatherer. That said, I don't recall seeing them there last time I looked(edit: never mind, they're still there). I presume WotC did not like the ease of getting vaguely-good looking proxies printed from the site and politely asked them to stop. If they still have some, that would qualify as a reason to keep it listed (since there are savory reasons for wanting large versions of cards, such as for Photoshoppery).

Ok, that is just an AWFUL reason to want to keep it. You want to link to them because they break copyrights by using high-res images? And "they're good to photoshop" is no freaking reason to link to them from here. --SeizureDog 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I did not say that I supported keeping magiccards.info in the list! However, you were asking what possible reason there could be to use that as opposed to Gatherer. I gave you a very good one, even if may be a reason you and WotC doesn't like. The fact that such a reason exists doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for the list, though. You'll note I did not actually suggest keeping the link above (like I do for Math of Magic), but merely said something its defense. I'm neutral on the subject. (While I don't like proxies and breaking copyrights, that isn't grounds alone to not link.

Seriously. I'm actually on your side for greatly shortening the list of links and the article, but jumping on people isn't going to get you allies. SnowFire 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To expound some more on the topic. If you want a more legit reason, I almost exclusively play online. The real art in person is far more detailed than the Gatherer scans, which don't really do justice to the artist. MTGO is even worse. But I've often bought these cards perfectly legitimately on MTGO. Why shouldn't I be able to see good versions of the artwork I've paid for, if I don't misuse it (which I don't)?

Let me stress again that "being useful" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being on the list. If a website has no claim to fame, then yeah, don't bother. I'm saying that magiccards.info has a reason to exist and meets that standard, which you seem to think it doesn't even get that far. That said, it's entirely possible that in spite of that, it still isn't notable enough to be on the list. And I'm cool with that, should it pan out that it isn't worthy of inclusion. Lots of websites have valid arguments in their favor yet shouldn't be on the list. SnowFire 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In defense of Math of Magic: That article was written for people unfamiliar with Magic. Any Magic player, new or old, will have a step up over those people. A quick glance reveals a well-footnoted essay that explains each card at the bottom for those who don't know what Rolling Thunder is. Plus, it qualifies on novelty grounds as something interesting and different that isn't really covered in the article. Very strong keep vote from here. SnowFire 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have representation of a Magic podcast? -- 207.237.26.115

1) Don't ever remove content from a talk page. Your excising of MTGSalvation was unwarrented and petty. 2) Why should a podcast be represented? Besides the official podcast they are nothing more than players' opinions on the game, which is something unencyclopedic. Nis81 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are MTG Paradise and Psi-soft Games even on this list? Psi-soft Games hasn't been updated since the beginning of May (and I think that's May 2005!). While I understand the desire to keep this from being Ameri-centric I think having two links to known non-American sites isn't going to make much of a difference. If we go down that route then why not have a link to a French MTG scene site, or a German scene, or a Russian scene? See where I'm going? And the unofficial links already there aren't even centered towards one country. MTGSalvation is the only other site that I would question, but it has been very important when it comes to spoilers and rumors. I wouldn't have any problem with it removed though. Nis81 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language Wiki page for Magic, which is why I never bothered getting a French or German site. I personally chose MTGParadise as it has been around for years. As for the Psi-soft one, if you can find a better one for the Brits, I say go ahead. Maybe just have the Aussie one, to represent the globalness, if I may invent a new word, and forget the Brit one.--Bedford 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats 3 times at least I have seen that someone different has added MTGCast to the wiki and 3 times it has been removed... how come people are allowed to add other links but just not MTGCast?, we may be too new for Pagerank or Alexia (we have an alexia ranking now), I will continue to watch this topic but I dont want this getting personal.

--Quozt 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because podcasts really shouldn't be in here. Most podcasts are just forums for the podcast makers' opinions, which really shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia. If any podcast should be included it would be the WotC one.

Hi, I'm a total newbie to wiki but I know a few folks on this board from MTGSalvation, Starcity, and WOTC boards. I just wanted to update you on 3 of the sites. Phyrexia.com is rarely updated, however it is the best reference I know of for magic storyline. Even then, it's incomplete in many places. MTGSalvation would definitely qualify as a top site, while its articles aren't as comprehensive as Brainburst or Starcity, it is the top site in the US for rumor releases and as such has had both contentious and positive experiences with WOTC. (see the lawsuit against Rancored_Elf,) I'm surprised Starcitygames is not linked. Many established pros write for the site much like brainburst, but I think it's main qualification for inclusion is this - While it's also a store, the current editor of Magicthegathering.com, Ted Knutson, is the former editor of Starcitygames. The Ferret (former editor of SCG) is now the Casual writer for Wizards. Ben Bliewiess is an employeed Writer for WOTC and is also the owner of StarCity. 10-2-2006 - "Bad Luck"

Books

I believe that the Article on the Storyline should be extended. I mean i love Magic and I feel that the books are a big part of it. There are no descriptions of the books and the lists dont show which sets go in order.

Good news and bad news on Images.

The good news is that WotC came through on their side of the deal, much like Italy beating the Czech Republic. I got this in the email recently:

---

Dear Mr. ((My name)):

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (“Wizards”) for permission to use Magic: The Gathering® trading card game images (the “Images”) in the Wikipedia article you are editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_the_gathering.

Wizards hereby grants you permission to use several, but no more than, twenty-four (24) Images solely in the Magic: The Gathering Wikipedia article. You agree to include in the copyright/legal text of the article the following: “Images used with permission of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” For every Image inserted in the article, insert the following text near the Image: “© Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Image used with permission.”

You also covenant and agree to ensure that in no event shall the Images be used in any obscene manner, or in any derogatory or disparaging fashion towards either a third party, its products, or services, or Wizards, its parent company, Hasbro, Inc., their affiliates, or their respective products or services.

Thank you, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly at (number).

Sincerely,

Andrew Smith

Assistant Brand Manager, Magic: The Gathering

---

Sounds fair enough to me. I really doubt we'll hit the 24 card limit, and the article isn't "derogatory" or "disparaging." Do note the limitation to just this article, though.

The bad news is, uh, on our side. Wikipedia seems to be determined to throw the ball game away; when I went to upload the image with the copyright issue nicely ironed out, I got to see the following gem on the licensing tag page:

Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies. They will be deleted.

• {{copyrighted}}—permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.

...

...

...

Presumably the policy was declared in a fit of madness brought on by entirely too much... sugar. It's okay to use "fair use" images where we don't have permission, but it's not okay to use images where we do have permission? Calling Mr. Kafka, please. I checked all the various Image Use pages on Wikipedia, but none of them actually bother explaining this policy. I mean, I can guess- mirrors would be annoyed that they can only take some of Wikipedia's content- but that's their problem, not ours. Not to mention, there's always alt text.

Anyway. I uploaded the images despite this, and grudgingly called them "fairer use." After all, I always thought that we really had fair use shots on any Magic card anyway- it's not like they aren't all right there on the WotC site and countless others, and they are lo-res. I stuck in the copyright information anyway as a courtesy, despite the fact that we are technically not using it with permission, because if we had permission that would be Bad. Note that I didn't quite tag the thumbnail description on each image; the request merely asked that the copyright be near each image, so I figure that Jeweled Bird & Lord of the Pit are near enough to each other that one copyright can cover 'em both.

Two important things are left for Featured Article status:

• Triple check italics use. Should the formats be italicized? The article currently is inconsistent, sometimes italicizing and sometimes not. Also, as a reminder, Magic gets to be italicized in every reference (but not Magic Online!).
• Start the ardruous process of getting more cites in there. Generally it shouldn't be hard to use cite-webs and the WotC site (or occasionally SCG), but it's going to be annoying work.

We also need to decide if the nice 6-card montage we'd been using before should be kept. I like it, but it is a bit small unless you click on it.

As a random other comment, now that the card back is elsewhere in the article, there's an uncomfortable amount of wasted space between the infobox and the table of contents at the beginning of the article. Anyone have any ideas on how to fill that? (Previously, the trivia on the card back helped a bit there). SnowFire 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Through some random browsing, I found this tag: Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS. Apparently, we need to have the evidence lodged at the PR department. I suppose this makes sense, don't want people just claiming that they got permission willy nilly. This way the proof is to be had.--SeizureDog 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Wizards will never ever ever release the artwork under the GNU Free Documentation License. That License is very close to simply giving up copyright and releasing to the public domain; there'd be nothing to stop taking the image and using it for a "Hasbro sucks" page. Heck, people could even modify the images. WotC very rationally wants to control their art... and it seems that the "closed source / reserved rights must be destroyed" faction won the debate at Wikipedia. I don't think that there's any way around simply using them as fair use and fair use only. SnowFire 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I think I found what is supposed to be used. It seems that Template:Fair use in and Template:Withpermission are supposed to be used together in this case. --SeizureDog 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. I was using Fairusein before, but I added the Withpermission template... not that it does that much. Still, nice to have. SnowFire 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{permissionandfairuse}} and the combination mentioned above work for this. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Content

From Jan 2005 through April 2006 (see archives at top of page) per request. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Shivan Dragon

Shouldn't we revert to the old back, because Shivan Dragon is merely one creature?

The Ronin 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The card back, aside from not being particularly pretty, contains basically no information. However, seeing a Magic card tells volumes about what the game is and how it works. The card was not chosen lightly; it's an iconic and evocative card with two abilities that tell you something about how the game works, and some flavor text. In fact, I might suggest that given the choice between this long article and one picture of a Shivan Dragon card, the picture is better for 90% of all visitors of this article. It compactly tells more about the game better than paragraphs of explanation. SnowFire 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. The infobox should contain the most iconic picture possible, and what's more iconic than the card back? Plus, the first image should generally contain the logo, which the obverse does not have. Besides, you act like there's no other pictures in the article. It's not like a person can't just scroll down a bit to see how the obverse side of the cards look like. --SeizureDog 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

True, though that cuts both ways; you can scroll down and see the card back. Plus, the opening logo more applies for things like corporations rather than specific games. *shrug* I think that the Dragon picture is far better as an initial blast of "This is Magic," but obviously if the community says otherwise, go ahead and change it. Anybody else have an opinion? SnowFire 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go with the card back logo we had. True, the dragon picture is nice, but as SeizureDog said, the picture should usually be something iconic, which in this case would be the back of the card, as its the most recognizable thing, which hasnt changed since the game began. DemonWeb 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Snowfire. Having a representative or sample card image is very helpful, in my opinion. As noted, the back of the card, while emblematic, doesn't really provide any information. Seeing an actual card that would be used in play helps people to get a sense of context or provides information on what one of these cards would really look like. I definitely favor having the Shivan Dragon over the card back as the article image. Slordak 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To J7731376

See: WP:VANITY. Especially note these parts:

The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

That second rule may be a little extreme, but it's a good general rule (the exceptions are when Steven Hawking wants to help edit the article on Hawking radiation or the like). Now, to be honest, under the old page where we had a list of 20+ links, your article probably would have fit in fine. But we've been trying to slim that down to something more manageable. Plus, blog links are really bad, since they inherently self-promote. Does this newspaper have the article up in their online archives? That would be a much more suitable link, assuming the article is judged to be worthy of the list at all. SnowFire 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To SnowFire

Unfortunately, the article is not in their online archives. It appears the Phoenix only archives articles by staff writers, not freelance. If it was, I personally would much rather link to the paper's archive rather than mine.

I fully understand the need for slimming down. And, I'm really glad that you responded to me (I would have written in the talk page, but I didn't know how yet). So, if you want to take out the article, that's cool. I think it's the only copy of it currently on line.

Other Aspects

File:DFRG. MSC.jpg

M:TG R0xx0RS your S0xx0RS!

What about card piracy, home made M:TG cards (Dante's Card Maker), computer games, alternate rules, competions, renowned cards ect? Should some of these not be covered?

User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg

Card piracy is not much of an issue, really. Not that I can tell, at least; if you'd like to show that it is, be my guest. Likewise homemade cards. Shandalar might merit some mention, but then again the article is big enough as it is. Maybe a page about related products would be in order.

Tournaments are discussed here, if you'll note. Actually there is probably more about them than there really needs to be. And renowned cards are entirely uninteresting to someone who doesn't play the game.

In short, what this article actually needs is to be trimmed, not added to.

--Khaim 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent shifts.

Netoholic and others have made some changes recently. I'll talk about the other issues later, but the image issues need to be discussed now before OrphanBot comes in and makes it more work to switch later.

-The Shivan Dragon / Card back issue has been dealt with above, and it seems roughly even. I won't revert it back to the SD since it seems to be close, but I stand by my preference for the dragon. That said, the newly uploaded version of the card back doesn't look very good; it's very dark. Should we go back to the old one?

-Netoholic said that the Jeweled Bird image "does not convey additional value." How do you come by that? Lots of players have never seen ante cards before (or only dimly recall them), and it's an example of what one is like. It gives something concrete to sit on and say "Oh, so it worked like that" as opposed to having some nebulous idea in your head (do you bet additional cards to the ante? Bidding on special cards? What?).

More generally (and including the removal of the Giant Growth picture), the guidelines for good articles do recommend a fair amount of images to spice things up. I don't see what we're gaining by reducing the number of relevant images we have. Plus, I am firmly of the opinion that the more cards that are in the article, the better. If someone is trying to understand biology, they need to actually go see some plants & animals and mess with them, not merely read about them in a text-only book. It's the same here. The best way to understand Magic is to see actual Magic cards.

-For the Patent issue, while I too have wanted to either source or remove some of the assertions there, Netoholic has removed the actual controversy part that merits it being in the "Controversies" section at all as opposed to the history. We definitely need at least some mention of the fact that WotC's patent is considered suspicious by some. SnowFire 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The card back should remain to be used, since that is an excellent way to allow consistency across all the CCG articles. The card back design of CCGs is the most distinct visual difference between game systems. Ante is described in that section, and the "Jeweled Bird" image does not add anything to it. It doesn't illustrate "ante". The "Giant Growth" picture was out of context with it's "A 'pump' spell" description. We have right above that an illustration of several cards of different types and colors. Again, it was an image that added nothing. The Patent issue is and should be covered in the collectible card game article. Magic was only the basis for the patent. WotC's licensing of the CCG mechanics and legal actions are CCG topics, not Magic topics. I am reverting. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't it obvious what the value is? Giant Growth is an illustration of a common spell type in the game for those who haven't played it. Jeweled Bird, while not illustrating ante, certainly illustrates ante cards, a distinction between Magic and most betting games (You can't show off a jack in poker and declare that there's another surprise round of betting, unlike Demonic Attorney). We could certainly write out some example ante cards in text, but the article is too long as is, and images spice things up and enhance readability while conveying the information just as well, if not better (since it also includes things like the artwork).

This was a bit ago, but I was actually thinking of eventually submitting this article for peer review after making various needed clean-ups and reference citing (but got distracted). From a linked article from Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them:

(a) Try not to overwhelm the text with "too many" pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline. Try to space images out throughout the article and keep pictures from bumping into each other.

Now, that's obviously a guideline and not a rule, but for reference, your version of the article contains roughly ~7387 words (ignoring references, See also, and links) and 6 images for a ratio of 1 image: 1230 words. I think it could definitely do with more pictures to improve the flow; are 8 or 9 images so horrible?

I find it weird that I have to explain how these add anything to the article. Should an article on birds feature pictures of birds? Should an article on Magic cards feature pictures of Magic cards? This seems like a no-brainer. Now, if you have better suggestions of pictures that you feel would be more appropriate, that's one thing, but simply removing a bunch of images when we're hardly overweight on the image side of things seems odd (we are definitely overweight on text; if you want to chop, I recommend starting there).

As for the controversies section, you are correct that the Collectible Card Games article is the place for it, hence the Main Article template there. That said, the section there needs to explain something about the dispute, preferably a concise summary. Abruptly leaving off with "there's a controversial patent, but we're not even going to hint as to why" isn't good style and leaves people who don't click the link in the lurch. You should at least have an idea of what you're glossing over for those who aren't following every link. SnowFire 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with SnowFire. I admit that the caption on Giant Growth was terrible, but that's grounds for changing/deleting the caption, not removing the image. Likewise, if you feel the section on the patent is too POV, rewrite it- but it deserves a few sentences here. --Khaim 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall Grizzly Bears as being most (non-basic land) often reprinted card (or at least tied or something). It is also iconic enough to where vanilla creatures have earned the nickname of "grizzlies". I think it should be in the article to illustrate creatures. Being a vanilla creature, it also keeps things simple and won't over complicate the explanation. --SeizureDog 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, but can you explain any further why you oppose pictures and explaining the patent objection, Netoholic? You reverted them out without any comment on the talk page. My above reasons for preferring them stand.

As for the Giant Growth picture, if Khaim can think of a better caption, that's fine, of course, as would a full-on replacement. I don't know if I'd agree with Grizzly Bears as a good replacement picture- it might be a little too simple. Something in the text box other than flavor text would be good, as the "2/2" isn't automatically obvious. Perhaps the currently stranded Shivan Dragon picture would work?

A few other issues: There's still a cite needed on the following passage.

Primarily to prevent North American discounters from dominating the European market, wholesale distributors are not allowed to ship product to foreign nationalities, thereby affecting the market and creating pockets of opportunity.

This remark seems weirdly American-triumphalist. Now, I'm all about laughing at inefficient, "liberal Europe," but, uh, I don't see why the US would have such an advantage. American exporters would still have to pay the VAT and any duties. I don't see any reason why European companies wouldn't be able to compete just as well as American ones at something as simple as selling cards. I'm not saying that this is false, but can anyone explain or cite why?

In such a tournament, a metagamed-deck (a deck designed to defeat common builds in an environment; see also The Dojo effect) may be a superior choice.

It seems that The Dojo effect article has gone dead (it did exist at one time), and unsurprisingly so. Does anybody still use the term anymore? It was before my time, and I saw reference to it a few times on "back in the day" reminsces at SCG... but all I've heard actually used nowadays is simple "netdecking." I think it was novel for a time back when the Internet was not built into metagames, so they were very local; but now that's expected, so there's just "The Metagame," and of course it's affected by what's online. I'd be in favor of removing the reference, or at least dating it.

Also, the rules section has continued to grow back in detail. I don't think I agree with this; as noted a long while back (in the "to-do" list among other places), we want a simple and basic overview suitable for an unfamiliar audience. If people want to learn every detail of the rules, they can look at the rules page. SnowFire 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the game play section with a flamethrower. Some notes:

• I don't think the "game play" section needs more than a very simplified overview of how the game works. I may have cut too much, but let's face it, a casual visitor doesn't need to know and certainly doesn't care about the various permanent types. Nor do they need to know the specialized names for the library and graveyard.
• The deck construction section was far too personal. We shouldn't tell people what they "should" do.
• The sections describing the colors are pretty good, but a bit long and sometimes redundant. For example, the eight strengths listed for white are really only three or four different aspects.

The article is down to 49kb, which is still a bit large.

--Khaim 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Internal Links

I dont think magic battlegrounds really deserves a link as much as say apprentice or workstation, battlegrounds may have been licensed by wizards but that doesnt justify it as having a significant level of importance to the mtg community. Battlegrounds is a completly different game to magic wheras apprentics and workstation are different ways of playing the same game. Games made based on movies/tv dont merit links in other wikipedia articles, battlegrounds is at best a poor remake.

I disagree entirely. This is the main page for Magic: the Gathering. If Battlegrounds has a page on Wikipedia, it should certainly be mentioned here. Importance is not the only factor in deciding what should be here. As far as being a "different game", so what? Should we link Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh from here because they're similar games? Of course not. Battlegrounds is set in the same world, its thematically linked, therefore its page is linked here. End of story.

And by the way, games based on movies or TV shows do merit links in other Wikipedia articles. See: Indiana Jones, King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean, List of video games based on licensed properties.

--Khaim 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to SCG

Can someone please explain why my link to starciygames was removed? It's arguably the premier site for tournament strategy, with many of the game's best players on its writing staff. RyanEberhart 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because a subset of users are violently opposed to linking to SCG. In fairness, SCG is a commercial site, which Wikipedia is normally hesitant to link to. There has to be a very good reason. Now, I think SCG meets that higher standard due to its wealth of strategy and free news and information there. However, support is not as universal as I'd like to try and "push" it through. I'd estimate that editors are maybe 60-40 in favor of SCG being linked, which is not enough. If this ever reached 75-25 (that is, 3 people in favor for every one opposing), then I'd be more willing to do a "this is the consensus, we're sticking it on." See Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering/Archive2#StarCityGames for more on that (bearing in mind that doesn't show edit summaries; there have been several random helpful/spammy, depending on your point of view, IP address anons who notice the omission and have added SCG). Note that this also means that if ANY commercial site gets on the External Links list, it has to be more notable than SCG somehow if we want to have consistency. SnowFire 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MTGOTraders

Kind of associated with the post above, but MTGOTraders has been relentlessly spamming the Magic: The Gathering Online article for the last three months (generally successfully, alas). This has included shifting links within the article to imply they are the main/only website that sells on Magic Online (diff) as well as modifying valid links to official news releases to go to their site instead (see example diff). For those kinds of tactics along with the commercial nature of the site, I submitted a blacklist request (though these things take some time to process). That said, the person behind the account (User:Blackangel63, created after the IP address being used before was on its last warning) has seemingly offered an olive branch and "only" wants to add it to the External Links now. Thoughts?

I personally think that to be consistent with the stand on SCG, a site with lots of valid content that happens to sell things, we need to also disallow MTGOTraders, a mainly commercial site that happens to also have some (admittedly useful) content. That said, perhaps we want to weaken that stance (and possibly save edit wars and having to have a site software-blacklisted). Figured that this is something requiring some input. SnowFire 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that mtgotraders and any other site of merit that offers free articles should be allowed on the unofficial list. I'm sorry for messing with the links and I had no idea it was that big of a deal. I will accept the internet flogging that I deserve.

Important MTG people

Recently, Mike Long, Kai Budde and Jon Finkel have been proposed for deletion, as well as Magic: The Gathering people. I noticed that the main article lacks a link to the latter. Does anybody else think that would be worth moving back into this article, or keeping seperate? FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has needed more cites for some time. I've added some myself and believe it meets GA criteria.

We could still use more cites, however. Unfortunately, the amount of objective literature is not huge- we want some perspectives from outside WotC, but most of those people are hard to qualify as experts. Even some things that should be easy to cite are annoying- the Awards section, which should be a slam-dunk in easyness, for example. The Origins website seems to be falling apart, and WotC's awards page was last updated in 2002 (And doesn't even have the ones we mention!). SnowFire 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Article improvements.

Marblespire and Cloveious, I reverted your changes. For snow mana, I really don't think that's a topic of such great importance that it needs a paragraph in the main article any more than Rebels or Mishra's Workshop need to be mentioned. There are tons of Magic concepts, but we need to focus on the heart of the matter with a clean overview. Perhaps a one-sentence mention of snow in passing can be worked in later. As for your comments Marblespire, myself I am very leery of any comments on games that mention "X is only for expert use" or "B is ." There are only 5 colors in Magic, and saying things like "Blue is also the hardest to play well," while not necessarily false, demands a lot more clarification. It's not something I'd leave hanging without a lot more chatting about the nature of the color wheel- perhaps appropriate if we were to fork off an article on the color wheel, but even still, it'd be very easy to dive into Original Research.

As a general note, I intend to go through the article again soon and try and add some cites and reverse some accumulated build-up of inconsistent edits. I'm still not convinced by Netoholic's repeated reversion away from the other card images in the article, but I laid off fighting the war at the time; I'll probably put a few of those images back, seeing as there wasn't any further development of that debate from before. Any objections/comments to this? SnowFire 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I object, hybrid mana gets its own paragraph and it was only released in Ravnica Block, Snow-covered cards and the idea of snow has existed a lot longer, and have been in development since the begining. --Cloveious 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In Ice Age, snow-covered lands didn't produce any different type of mana, and nothing was based off tapping them specially. They were no different than, say, tribes in Onslaught- if you have a lot of snow covered lands, something good may happen, you can sacrifice them for special effects, etc. Anyway, the section you inserted it into was on Magic's color-wheel, not mana in particular. Hybrid is fundamentally different and ties into how you can cast spells of a specific color. It was also used for an entire block, while "snow mana" was used for just one small set. Suppose we have the sentence "Some mana has special restrictions or benefits, such as only being usable for artifacts or powering special "snow" cards." Where should this go in the article? This is not an article on Magic rules. Consider that we don't talk about equipment, which was in considerably more sets. Heck, we don't talk about enchant creatures / Auras directly, merely vaguely reference that they exist. Those go in first before snow. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SnowFire 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeweled Bird image

Netoholic, in order to avoid a stupid edit war, I held off fighting this issue much before- in fact, I took a long break from this article entirely to avoid that stupidity. I acquiesed to your picture removing for now because I'd posted a reply to your non-argument in favor of removal on the talk page and was waiting for a response. Wikipedia civility guidelines generally prefer people hash out a tough topic on the talk page and then edit, rather than have a revert war going back and forth. The fact that I stopped fighting the revert war before doesn't mean you'd "won." Since it'd been awhile and you never replied, I decided to put back just one of the pictures as a compromise (and since others had raised concerns about the other one). Wikipedia works on consensus, believe it or not- despite the fact that I've done a fair amount of editing lately, if the consensus disagreed with a part I preferred, I'd shrug and move on. Can't always get your way.

All my arguments at Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#Recent_shifts. above still stand. Your only argument was:

"the "Jeweled Bird" image does not add anything to it. It doesn't illustrate "ante"."

"Does not add anything" is totally unhelpful as to why you think it should be removed. It's pretty close to saying just "I don't like it." I've already detailed why it does, in my opinion, "add something" and help illustrate ante (at least without making the text wordier). Again, if you can suggest something better, than fine! Heck, you might even convince me I'm wrong. But you're going to have to explain more than "Does not add anything" backed by reverts. SnowFire 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I added Reject Rare Draft

Well, first, I'd say it's because there was an AfD on it, and I've got to agree, RRD doesn't deserve its own article. At most, Magic Variants get an article, and that's possibly a stretch. Besides, I noticed that the section on Variants didn't mention anything about Draft variants. Since RRD has been talked about on Wizards.com I think it's notable and verifiable enough to get a place, unless somebody has something else to add.

BTW, I just noticed, there's no mention of Rochester Draft anywhere in this article. Is there a reason for that? FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

American vs British English

While I believe that changing colour to color is complete rubbish, if warring breaks out as a result of the spelling, one decision is to set the spelling by the first primary author. Which, by that precedent, is in fact color not colour.

Like I said, this is complete rubbish that some people have to make an issue out of it. Either way is spelled properly. --myselfalso 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, this article should be in American English, primarily by virtue of precedent. Not to mention that it is a game made by a US company; the cards themselves, for example, use color and not colour. --Khaim 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My reduction to the Game Plan section

I have tried to reduce the game plan section to their bare mechanics by:

- removing or summarizing redundant information - removing the common creature types for each color - not entirely useful, important, and plus, alot of types are shared between colors. - sections referencing advanced players or techniques - typically, this information doesnt apply much to a community, such as excyclopedia readers, who are unaware of the game before this. - moved alot of info, such as the list of Mark Roosewater's color articles, to references, as they dont directly contribute to the article, yet are good reinforcement to what has been said. - a bunch of other edits I unfortunately cannot seem to remember in detail.

I hope it's a good first edit, and if it was a mistake for me to make it, I wont be offended if it gets reverted. Also, it seemed to have logged me out as I was editing, so it was actually I who performed it.

Also, a question: is the enemy/allied color descriptions really necessary?Flashstorm 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes to that last; I think the color pie is one of the more important aspects of the game, and the ally/enemy colors are crucial to that. --Khaim 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of cards in Magic

One point in the article it says Magic has "over 8000" cards, later it says "over 8400". While both could technically be true, it would probably be good to have the number consistant throughout the article.

The current count for unique card names is 8640. But you're right, it could use some standardization.

--Khaim 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

External linking / MTGOTraders redux.

The issue brought up before at Talk:Magic: The Gathering#MTGOTraders have resurfaced again. The person who runs MTGOTraders put in a request to have MTGOTraders taken off the spam block list over at the Wikimedia website (see [2], and asked that I bring up the matter (I was the one who submitted the original blacklist request, after all). Since there seems to be less confusion about how Wikipedia works now, it seems more likely that an external link on the MTGO article would be used as WP style rather than infusing links into the article text.

Anyway. I will once again raise the issue: Do we want to open the door to commercial sites in the External Links? As a reminder, Wikipedia:External links does say that "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a web directory." The "no commercial" clause also allows for easy removal of any non-notable spammer site without having to debate the relative merits of the site.

However, I can't help but think that an EL section without starcitygames and its large backlog of free history and strategy is incomplete. Wizards.com has linked to "classic" articles on SCG quite a few times. And, despite being a commericial site, mtgotraders does offer some useful MTGO-specific information and was recently linked to from wizards.com. If a very high bar is set, with it clear that any commerical site can only be added to EL in spite of its commericial nature, I think we could loosen the policy. Any thoughts? (No comments, like before, will probably mean status quo.)

--

Also, while I'm here, re: Uriel's recent edits. To add "both of which are heavily marketed and aimed at a younger audience" to "Magic’s gross card sales have been surpassed in recent years..." makes it seem defensive for Magic; the implication is that Magic would have done just fine if these evil new games weren't so well marketed. While this may be true, it isn't really the place for the article to say. As for MTGO, while gambling is forbidden, that has more to do with avoiding getting sued or prosecuted in places where gambling is illegal; old ante cards simply aren't implemented. I think the "forbidden on MTGO" phrasing implies that ante cards exist there, and just can't be used in sanctioned events. SnowFire 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of allowing commercial sites, but only those with extensive and free articles. SCG is probably okay, for example. That said, I also have no problem with people being overprotective of the external links section; the article is long enough, and having lots of external links doesn't help it any. --Khaim 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

What are foils? Its mentioned in the text, but i'm not sure what they are exactly. Thanks.

Foils are cards with a slightly reflective coating; they have a subtle silver appearance layered atop of the original card. (At least, that's what I think the text is referring to.) Mindmatrix 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See Holofoil. --SeizureDog 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced fact.

"However, Magic’s gross card sales have been surpassed in recent years by other modern CCGs, particularly by Japanese import games based on the Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! franchises."

I really highly doubt this. Magic has always been the biggest TCG of them all. As far as I know, Pokemon rather went bust around Fossil and secondary market crashed. And Yu-Gi-Oh! always was a bit of a joke; too many redundancies. Unless this is referring to a worldwide view (I'm not sure if they suddenly went major in Japan or something), I'm willing to bet Magic is still going strong.--SeizureDog 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Magic is still going strong, and this quote doens't deny that. I personally think this is true. However, you're right that it's unsourced, and until someone can find confirmation we'll keep it here. --Khaim 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Surpassed" is the key word here. I'm not denying that the others sell well, I just don't think they are selling more than Magic does.--SeizureDog 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not anywhere close to an expert on Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh, but my understanding is that they did surpass Magic's sales, and by a lot. I'm not so sure about today, but I'm fairly sure that was true from 2000-2003 or so for Pokemon, and for 2003-(present?) for YGO. When the GA re-review article came up before, I actually did try and find a cite for that statement. Unfortunately, the sales figures don't seem to be officially released by Upper Deck for YGO. It's privately held, so I can't even find a shareholder report. I'm sure that the IRS could figure out their sales by extrapolating based on revenues, but that data isn't accessible to us easily; it has to be drawn from shipments to stores and so on. As for Pokemon, well, that's just a blowout. [3] claims over 14 billion total Pokemon cards are in circulation, while searches for the total number of Magic cards yield "several billion" from WotC's crappy fact sheet circa 2004 [4] (and Magic is older, and also didn't go bust after 2003). Pokemon was probably selling five times as many cards as Magic during its heyday, at the very least. A source from the Pokemon article [5] says that there have been 155 million units of Pokemon sold. If we generously consider that every player bought three versions of Pokemon (probably incorrect, as many only played 1 or 2 then moved on?), then say that only 20% of fans who played a game bothered with the card game, we are left with ~10 million Pokemon TCG players. And that's ignoring people who exclusively played the card game. WotC only claims 6 million fans for Magic, and there's no particular verification behind that claim. Now, none of this is direct enough to be a cite, but the inferred evidence is pretty strong. Heck, if you want to see what's really popular, see what's being sold at non-gaming stores like supermarket vending machines, CVS counters, and at book stores. I still see plenty of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards there, but very rarely any Magic cards (unlike 1995-96, when you could find Magic cards anywhere). SnowFire 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Typo?

The Black Lotus card pictured is from Unlimited (note the white border), whilst the caption under it refers to the Alpha Black Lotus, which would have a black border and rounded corners. --Random Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.225.210 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Alpha cards (as well as all core sets) are white bordered. --Mjrmtg 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that is correct. Alpha and Beta were both black-bordered; Unlimited was white-bordered. --Khaim 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - Alpha and Beta are black-bordered. --Mjrmtg 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Future articles on future Blocks and Sets

Why are all articles based on future blocks merged with articles which are based on the first set of the block? Time Spiral article is about both the set and the block; while Planar Chaos gets an article of its own. I don't think the names of the sets should determine where the articles go (it's only because Time Spiral is named after the block is it in the same article -- I believe there are other articles on Wiki which don't do this); there should be a separate article for the block, and then one for the large set named after the block --- 1 contains info about general storyline, info on the block as a whole; while the other is specifically about the first set of the block. Can someone take note of this in the future so that the articles are done right?

I think the people who catch up with making these articles are from an MTG Wikipedia Group (their job is to do articles on everything MTG). I don't know where to find them, so can someone from there take note of this request? 24.23.51.27 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been raised before, but...

If people want to cut down on the size of this article, it seems that a good place to start would be at the oh-so-in-depth descriptions of the symbolosim of each color type, like all those abstract qualities. Not being a seriosu player, I don't feel I have the right to know which priorities to choose (Is it more important that White is "righteous" or "lawful"?, etc). --192.154.65.1 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I woudl suggest splitting that section off actually, rather than trimming it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the "Controversial aspects" should be split off instead. It seems long enough to stand alone.--SeizureDog 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. For instance World of Warcraft has its own controversy article titled Criticism of World of Warcraft. 130.231.89.99 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

By the way, if the controversial aspects part is given its own article, there are some more things that could be added. They cannot, of course, be added now, since the article is already long. One issue is the official Wizards policy of not allowing cross-border wholesale. To preserve NPOV it should be added that this is partly a measure to boost the prominence of each country's official Magic importer/distributor. The other issue is Wizards skewing the Magic media for their favour, since they are also the biggest and most prominent 'publisher' of Magic and Pro Tour related information - this is naturally typical for ANY company, but still an issue that could be mentioned. 130.231.89.99 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

Eh. Wikipedia style is not really a fan of "criticism of" articles because they tend to attract low-quality contributions (read: rants from random people). Sometimes they are unavoidable, but I don't think that's the case here.

As for the colors issue, I don't think that can be split off either. It's a bit long, yes, but it's fundamental and important to the topic (unlike, say, play variants, which are clearly a side topic that can be briefly summarized without harm). Furthermore, there isn't a huge amount of room for expansion that doesn't verge even farther into original research, as we've already pretty heavily quoted MaRo. SnowFire 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that these controversies do exist and are pretty important for this particular game. (For instance 'independent sites' have multiple times becried Wizards controlling the information flow and stealing their writers, merchants have bitched about the wholesale ban etc etc.) I consider it unecyclopaedic that these issues be dismissed without mention. And if they can't be expanded here, why not collect them under their own topic? 82.128.184.201 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

The rules on international selling are already mentioned in the Product and Marketing section, I believe. If you feel that there's a relevant expansion, go for it, but I'm not sure what else there is to say. As for writer poaching... come on, that's utterly common. Major publishing houses and magazines do this literally all the time, and frankly, I'm not so sure people consider it a bad thing if a talented independent writer can be noticed and "picked up." (This isn't even mentioned at most magazine articles here on Wikipedia, and magicthegathering.com is way less notable than, say, TIME or the Washington Post). As for "controlling the information flow," again, that's called "doing their job." Every single product producer better be controlling the information flow about their product, and I'll add that Wizards is infinitely more open about their process than 95% of other corporations (do supermarkets want you to know how your hamburger was really made? That would be a "no.") SnowFire 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Beta Black Lotus versus Alpha Black Lotus

One of the image captions has outdated information. It says that Beta Black Lotus would be most expensive 'normal' card, even though the Alpha one has been more expensive for a few years now. This is due to a DCI policy change: You are now allowed to play a mix of Alpha cards and other cards in tournaments, if you use hard-ish and opaque sleeves. This equalizes the gameplay value for Alpha and Beta cards, so now only the actual printing frequency of these two sets determines the collector aspect value; Alpha had smaller print, so Alpha rares are more expensive now. I'm going to change the caption right away without discussion, since this is verifiable fact. 130.231.89.99 13:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

shouldnt this be added?

since i havent played this game in years, and never intensively anyway, i dont just wanna go ahead and edit. but shouldnt it mention 1. that for 'white' actually the color yellow is often used, such as on the back of the card, which color is much closer to yellow then it is to white. 2. that white is good with the use of enchantments as well as destroying them. 3. that green often uses or is good with mass attacks with lots of huge creatures. 4. i remember in our school we used to use a rule that you shuffled your land cards and all your other cards seperately and then mixed them together 1 by 2 or just about 1 by 2. if that rule has been used more often it should probably have a mention in "luck versus skill". Lygophile has spoken 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1. This isn't really important, in my opinion. I would say this is just trivia about the way Magic cards are printed. 2-3. These would go into the color-specific section, but I'm not entirely sure whether it should. I'm pretty sure (not certain, since I didn't add that part) the color-specific information is mostly taken from MaRo's articles. 4. I'm not sure why you did this at your school (I've never even heard this "rule" before), but it is not used in very many places (and it's certainly not even legal to do this in tournaments), so that's why you don't see it mentioned. --Insane 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

we used it to minimise the extreme luck factor of mana flood or drought, as is mentioned in the article. but it could very well not have been used anywhere else. isnt white enchantment specialists, just as blue is instant specialist?. Lygophile has spoken 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Game Strategy

Perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see much talk about any of the actual strategy of game-play. After doing a lot of reading on chess and all the various entries dedicated to the strategy of that game, I think this is far too important a topic to ignore. Indeed, I see it as the key distinguishing feature between M:tG and other, less enduring collectible card games, and I think it entitles the game to more credible exploration than less involved games. I think that it could encompass and expand considerably on the "deck types" page, as the old classification of the Aggro-Control-Combo meta-game has almost completely disappeared in terms of relevant strategy. Malichai 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'd support what you suggested (though my knowledge is somewhat limited in this area myself, never got into the game that detailed). I believe there ought to be an entire section in the main article about playing strategy, that also links to the (yet to exist) main article on MtG strategy. With perhaps in future various sub articles on different types of strategies. This is after all just a small part of the level of detail which is gone into in Chess. And like Malichai pointed out this is one of the big differences of MtG over other less successful card trading games. Mathmo ^Talk 03:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Unlike chess, Magic is not static, so it's hard to write timeless strategy. Worse, unlike some other facts, there may well be too many sources to cite for strategy. Author A says this, Author B says that, and you end up with some kind of Talmudic dialog edit war as people put their competing ideas on Magic into the article, citing authors that agree with them. Plus, it can be difficult to keep current, with new "staple" cards and rules changes and the like. The deck types articles are about as close as we can get, I suspect. Anyway, I think that other sites can fill that need better than Wikipedia can, so I added a direct link to the Magic Academy to the EL.

Also, while I removed it from the EL, it's probably worth mentioning the MTG.wikia.com wiki here on the talk page. It's waaaaaaaay too small and tiny to be a notable EL yet, as the article should reflect reality, not try and shape it. That said, it may be useful for adding extra info not appropriate for WP. SnowFire 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a counter-point, there are quite a number of chess entries on chess variations, and they can be quite extensive. Just spend a few minutes looking through all the chess-related articles and you'll see what I mean; chess variations and chess openings each have quite a bit of writing and a huge amount of encompassed articles. While obviously Magic has neither the reputation nor the history of chess, I think it does deserve some serious consideration as a game of strategy and logic. A relatively simple article describing basic well known concepts of strategy such as mana curve, tempo, card advantage, with some examples of various decks and how they've utilized those strategies and how Magic theory has changed over time would, I think, be merited. And while a plethora of opinions on game theory can be found on the internet, the same is true of chess; but there are a lot of agreed upon points or areas where the disagreement is pretty clear and can be concisely expressed. I'm imagining a lot of references to Flores and Zvi, personally. Malichai 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this link be included?

Noticed this site was added just after my last edit to the page, "Magic-League A website for MTG-online playing / Netdecking". I'm tempted to remove it, but thought there is no harm in first checking with other more active players of magic than myself to see if this site ought to be kept or not. Mathmo ^Talk 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Magic Online wiki article? If so, it should be moved there. --Mjrmtg 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, not seeing much defense. I also removed the Londes link; while I'd have no problem with Londes being there, our links section is getting near maximum length anyway, and it's a commercial site (and as mentioned before, if any commericial sites go up, SCG has priority.) SnowFire 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But isn't Magic.TCGPlayer a commercial site as well, with all their emphasis on subscriber content? --Insane 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)