Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

13+ age?

Anyone know why Magic is supposed to be for ages 13 and up? I'm thinking just how complex it is could be kinda difficult for younger players.-- Barkjon  complaints here! 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall that somebody taught me the basics when Alpha came out. I think I was 8 or 10 at the time, and I understood every aspect of the game (the five colors, card types, how tap meant rotate). By the way, I have mild autism and maybe that's a factor in this (I've tried to teach at least 3 other people with no success) Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically it's what the wrapper says, but that's obviously not the explanation. Actually as far as I know Wizards knows that many kids under 13 play Magic and is very happy with that. The "13+" comes from the depiction of monstrosities, especially in black and some mild nudity, again especially in black. Just like the movies you may not advertise this for the broad audience as suitable for all ages, but if your parents will let their ten-year old watch an 13+ movie at home respectively let him/her play Magic at the kitchen table, because they think he/she is mature enough, then there is no problem. OdinFK (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thought Black was a contributing factor in the 13+ thing. Black illustrations can get pretty gruesome looking. Plus, the game is pretty dang complex - and the rules change often.-- Barkjon  complaints here! 20:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

personnally, in addition to the above, i think it's also because Wizards didn't think everyone under thirteen would be able to play well, but you get that at mostt ages so I think it's moot... besides, i was tought by a ten year old. Jds500 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the 13+ came up around the same time MTG was being criticized for printing things like 'demons' and just being a game concerning magic in general. Also you do things like kill elves etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.120.50 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the age restriction? A lot of people try to change it to 12, adding a link to a source may finally stop this.--Narayan (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It says so on any booster pack you can get your hands on. Shouldn't that be enough? Actually I don't think Wizards mentions it anywhere on their website, but if you really, really want to be sure try this and take a real good look at the lower right corner of the booster box. OdinFK (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, i see. The older booster packs i still have don't mention this, seems like a later addition to the cover? A pity nothing is mentioned about this on the mtg site. Thanks for clearing this out anyway!--Narayan (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this information seem a little subjective, variable, and unencyclopedic, not to mention almost unsourcable? Conversation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Collectible_card_games#Infoboxes 2birds1stone (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that age recommendations are often printed right there on the box, that would be objective and sourceable. Someone changed the infobox age range to "6+" today - a random Amazon search backs that up to some extent, although the page says both "Suitable for ages 6+" and "Manufacturer recommended age: 3 years and up" (I guess the latter is just "physical cards are not safe for very small children"). Could someone who has one handy take a look at the back of a card box? --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, the Amazon image very clearly says "Age 13+" in the top right corner of the box, so I've no idea where they're getting their numbers. Also the IP who changed it to 6+ went on to change their edit to 6000+ and rename the game to the "Gathering of poo", so never mind. --McGeddon (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Skills required: Common Sense

This is a little strange for an infobox's contents. I'm not fully experienced in wiki matters but is this common and acceptable? It certainly doesn't read in an encyclopedic way. And (edit) I forgot to mention that the person adding it didn't bother to check if it directed to the literary or colloquial term. 98.111.220.242 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played it, but I hang around enough people that play it that they sometimes forget I don't play. I don't see how the game requires any more common sense than any other. Actually, since the unabridged official rules book is over 200 pages or something like that, I'd say that it involves as much rules-lawyering as any RPG. And since it's a competative game, not a cooperative one, common sense would probably be ignored. I'll remove it, but since this isn't on my watchlist, I'm not gonna enforce that removal. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I play the game a lot and while I don't really agree to the rules-lawyering aspect, common sense certainly does not distinguish Magic from other games. Considering that the rules of the game and not those of reality determine what you can do, "common sense" might actually be detrimental to the successful playing of the game. OdinFK (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since someone readded this, I'll just add my voice to the consensus that it doesn't belong. "Common sense" is already an ill-defined term, and I don't really see what of "common sense" wouldn't be covered by "logic" anyway. I also pretty much agree with the other concerns that other editors have raised here. Croctotheface (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Invalid references

Some ref links are dead or changed: 45, 16, 17 --Trollmen (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MTG has Cards From 1991

I have Cards From Before Alpha and Their dated 1991. I Know the Official Release Was in '93 but i think becaause there are multipule pre-alpha cards that it should be changed from 1993 to 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Where would these come from? Playtest cards don't really count. Also Magic cards show their copyright only since late 1994, so how would you know, that your cards are from 1991? OdinFK (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

When they first introduced "Flying", They had a card called "Bog Imp". I couldent find one from 1991, But i have one right here. Bog imp 1/1 costs one black and one colourless with no flavour text. The only one i could find on the internet was one from 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The card you mention is actually from The Dark, Summer 94. "Flying was first introduced" with the introduction of the game, August 93... OdinFK (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to all the reasons that have already been given why what Conkern says can't be true, cards didn't have copyright dates printed on them until 4th Edtion. 50.71.167.160 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Game inspired by a baseball game?

I could have sworn that in the early days of this game, either in the rulebook or in an interview with Garfield, he said that the game was inspired by a card game he played that centered around baseball. I was never sure if he meant he played a game like MtG but centered around baseball or if he played a game with baseball cards with baseball stats to play a game. Never knowing quite what he meant fixed this fact in my head for all these years. Anyone else remember this? Anyone know what game he was talking about? Also, I think any game that inspired Magic, certainly deserves inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.146.69 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I ever heard of it and I have read quite a lot about this game. On the other hand it's quite obvious that Richard took some inspiration from trading cards. I mean it's no coincidence that these cards are called "Trading Cards" and Magic is a "Trading Card Game". But then Richard -as far as I know- is a bit of a scholar of games, so inspiration comes from all sort of games, but it's a too simplifying to just say "this comes from that and this from that game". Do you have any clue where this statement comes from? Maybe an early Duelist? The rulebook it is most definitely not, though. OdinFK (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Garfield's main inspiration for Magic was the game Cosmic Encounter, first published in 1977. Richard is quoted from various sources that he appreciated Encounters ability to use cards for "game-changing effects". You can use the references in the article for his quotes, or you can just google Richard Garfield and cosmic encounter, as he's listed in several online articles and blogs talking about Encounters influence in his designs at many conventions and game design symposiums. The baseball game that's circling in your head is probably the reference to an early Collectible Card Game that is mentioned in that article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Random surfer - Yay, I can contribute to explaining what you are talking about. Drafting cards from booster packs was inspired by a baseball game (can't remember the name of it). In the baseball game you started the game by putting a random selection of cards on the table and taking turns picking players (cards). Since the playtesters knew the cards would be distributed in booster packs they made this work quicker by having each player open a booster pack and picking the cards at the same time. This is the reason drafting is called drafting; after the sports term. Can not remember where I've read this, so no source, sorry, but I suspect it was some article on magicthegathering.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.9.74 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

recent "mana curve" addition

I wonder if this recent edit, has real encyclopedical value. The subject seems noteworthy, but is written like a player guide, not like something you would expect in an encyclopedia. Also, the sources given (playing experience etc.) are in fact a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. What does everybody think about this?--Narayan (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it could be interesting, but not as currently written. - IanCheesman (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if rewritten to have encyclopedic value, I don't think this belongs in the main article. It's way to detailed. Maybe could be used somewhere else, though. OdinFK (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So, will we remove this part? Unless someane rewrites it and adds proper sources?--Narayan (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is appropriate to remove it. For easier future reference the removed passage was "Another aspect that a player must consider when constructing their deck is the mana curve.The mana curve is the distribution of mana costs from low to high within the deck. This is achieved by checking the converted mana costs of all the cards when choosing what creatures and spells are going to be used in the deck. In most cases, the lower the mana cost the faster the deck can swarm the field and gain control of the game flow. When the mana cost is higher, the opposite is true, the speed of the game tends to be slower as the player tries to build up the amount of usable mana to play the higher cost spells. Overall, a balance of low and high cost creatures is the ideal situation so that a player can have the defense they need with the low cost creatures while building up the amount of mana available to use the high cost creature or spells to overrun their opponent. The best way to check the mana curve of a deck is to take all the cards that the player wishes to use and lay them out by cost, going from left to right, low cost to high cost. A majority of spells should fall between the 0-3 cost range and branch out slowly into the 4-5+ mana cost range. This will ensure an even spread of mana usage throughout the game and keep the player in better standings to always be able to play a creature or spell when needed." OdinFK (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

History

The history section is a messy timeline, jumping back and forth without always making it clear, as if it were written one fact at a time. Here is an example:

"Beginning in 2009 one revision of the core set and three expansions are released every year. While the essence of the game has always stayed the same, the rules of Magic have undergone three major revisions with the release of the Revised Edition in 1994, Classic Edition in 1999, and Magic 2010 in July 2009.[13] With the release of the Eighth Edition in 2003, Magic also received a major visual redesign."

Additionally, the sections immediately preceding and following that quote refer to 1996.

Here are the dates as presented in the article (in order mentioned): 1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2009, 1994, 1999, 2009, 2003, 1996, 2009, 2002, 2008, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.11 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

At the history section i read: "Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993.", while the end of the very same paragraph reads: after two years of development Magic: The Gathering underwent a general release on 5 August 1993. Which makes me think about the source for that two year period? Is that two year period wrong, or the professor section, or doesn't the line about garfield being a professor matter at all?--Narayan (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It says this, too: "He worked in his spare time with local volunteer playtesters to help refine the game during the 1993 school year." In my opinion that should sufficiently clear, actually I don't really get what you find displeasing about this paragraph. Anyway I guess I can dig up a source for the two-year-period if you distrust that statement. OdinFK (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't that date be 1991 then? If he was developing the game for 2 years? So, what i'm saying is, shouldn't the history paragraph be starting with "Development of Magic: The Gathering started in 1991"?--Narayan (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, I guess chronological order makes sense. Although you might want to use just 'Magic' as product name. The 'The Gathering' part was added much later. The name of the game actually was Mana Clash at that point if I recall correctly. OdinFK (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any good source with information about the early days of magic? Cause right now the first sentence: Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993. In his spare time he worked with local volunteer playtesters to help refine the game during the 1993 school year. reads like a step got skipped. Where did "the game" come from? I removed the two year-devolopment part, but it seems like there should be some more information to be inserted at the very beginning of this section.--Narayan (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am utterly certain that at some point in the early 1990s, he posted to one of the rec.games.design newsgroups (rec.games.design.board?) about having developed the game and wondering what to do with it. The reason I remember it is that I went 'A game where you lose cards forever to someone because they play a card you've never heard of? Nah, it'll never sell' to myself. Obviously, I was wrong about that, but the only problem with proving my memory about the post is that I cannot find it in any online archive. Lovingboth (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The patent is invalid (as it was made public knowledge long before a patent was even applied for)and would lose in a court case if someone decided to copy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay summary unclear

The section about gameplay is unclear to me:

• Do the players know the cards on their opponent's hand?
• Do the players know the cards in their opponent's deck?
• Every player starts with a hand of seven cards. How were these seven cards chosen - randomly from the player's deck or deliberately?
• How does the game proceed - do players take turns? Take turns doing what?
• As game progresses, how does a player get new cards or discard cards? Do they always have seven cards on hand?

AxelBoldt (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem. I'll try to add some more about basics such as these later today. To avoid article bloat, I'll also trim the subsection explaining the colors, which doesn't need to be as large as it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. It could use tweaking and better integration, and perhaps some explicit references to pages in the rules, but that covers those points. Is there anything else you think should be included? lifebaka++ 17:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a lot better now, thanks! Still a few questions:

• I assume the initial 7 cards are drawn randomly from the player's own deck, right?
• The player whose turn it is plays the first card, right?
• "Playing a card" means following the instructions written on the card, and then discarding the card, is that correct?
• What if someone has fewer than 7 cards on hand? Do they draw a new card at that point?

Thanks again, AxelBoldt (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses:

• Yes. I tried to make that clear by stating that players shuffle their decks before playing. Should I add something more explicit?
• The current player (i.e. player whose turn it is) at least gets the chance to play things first. I've tried to make this more explicit here, but it feels awkward without going into it a bit deeper.
• This is covered in the third paragraph already. Some cards do what they say, then are discarded, while others stay in play, depending on card type.
• If a player has less than seven cards in hand, nothing special happens. They don't get to draw until they are back at seven or anything else. They just have fewer cards in hand (which may or may not be a good thing). I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning a lack of something.

I'm not going to be able to include the whole ruleset in the summary, or even enough that a player could learn off of it. Magic's rules are a bit too long to reasonably cover here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Demonic themes subsection

I think this sub-section (if it stays it should be part of the Product and marketing section, not artwork), fails WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, the only reference is Mark Rosewater's article on the subject. This was never a significant media controversy (comparable to the D&D demonic controversy of the 70's), as far as I'm aware that would warrant inclusion in the main article. Browsing the category I don't see any appropriate sub-article that this should be merged into. Perhaps a single sentence in the marketing section noting the disappearance of demons (retaining the ref of course) would be appropriate. Crazynas ^t 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Page reads like an advertisement

As of Nov. 13th, 2011 this page reads like a product advertisement. Before retiring I was an educator and a long time ago one of my students played this game to the point of obsession. On one occasion I tried playing the game at a shop but that was the only time. Nevertheless I did learn a great deal about the game from that student who I will call P. "Lane" S. Walker or PW for short.

Despite being impoverished PW was constantly buying more cards even though he already owned several hundred of them. Apparently most of his best cards had expired somehow and he always needed to buy new ones. Besides buying a small package of cards every few days he was also saving up to buy an entire set for about $200. His old stock, even if never used, had almost no value so he generally had to pay cash for the new ones.

He tried to explain the rules but to me but they were illogical. Consider the text on the wiki page, ""Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence"...The Comprehensive Rules, a detailed rulebook, exists to clarify these conflicts."

This is contradictory, if the card text takes precedent over the "rules" then whatever the "Comprehensive Rules" contain is irrelevant because they are still rules.

There are also cases where the text on the card is unclear or ambiguous or just wrong. For example, consider the text on the Brown Ouphe which PW showed to me, "Counter target artifact ability requiring and activation cost. Play this ability as an interrupt." Which ability is "this ability"? In English it must be the ability referred to in the first sentence. The passage isn't even ambiguous but anyone who tries to play it that way will be in for a fight because everyone else "knows" it is the Ouphe's ability. Note that in the real world the card text rarely takes precedence.

The one and only time I played the game it cost about $20 to buy a deck and some booster packs. That seemed a lot for cards that would soon expire so I stopped there. More than anything else this game is about continuously extracting money from its players.68.149.247.130 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So you don't like the game. The article is peer-reviewed and (mostly) neutral, though. But because it doesn't reflect you negative feelings towards the game it reads like an advertisment to you. If you point to parts that you think are in conflict with WP:POV these parts will of course discussed and changed if the consensus is they are indeed POV. Right now your comment reads like a flame towards the game with no intent to improve the article, though. Regarding your more specific observations they are portrayed in a way that is misleading and in part just wrong. There are lots of old cards with enormous value for example. Also the rules work fine, no matter whether they seem illogical to you. OdinFK (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment does not address the main criticism of the game -- that a good number of players spend a large number of money acquiring cards and that they seem to purchase these cards often. Perhaps this situation is true of all collectable games, but it certainly does seem to be a flaw of m:tg - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that "customers buy too much of it" is a "flaw" that every single product' would like to have? If anything, adding that "criticism" would be like adding advertising! "This game is too addictive, people keep buying it." SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, compared to other games, card games, and board games, m:tg, is different in having so many cards for sale. If I play Munchkin, Dominion, or Carcassonne, I don't need to buy any more cards or pieces to keep successfully playing the game for weeks, months, even years. But I have yet to meet a m:tg player who was satisfied with her deck for more than six months. There are many many games that are much cheaper to play than m:tg. Are they better than m:tg? Personal preference if you like tag, baseball, Ticket to Ride, or Yinsh better than m:tg; but, all those games, in my experience are cheaper to play. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about "cost of the hobby," sure, Magic has some expense, but like everything else there's a range. There are baseball fans who buy a glove, ball, & bat once and invest ~60 dollars lifetime. Then there are ones who buy season tickets and jerseys and other merchandise, and they can spend thousands of dollars. Ticket to Ride is a one-time purchase, sure, but you can buy new maps, get your America / Europe / Germany / Asia / etc. versions of the game - because it was successful, the company wants to sell more. Even something seemingly cheap like chess has fancy carved piece boards you can buy for hundreds of dollars, or professional coaching for thousands of dollars. Then there's hobbies like sailboat racing whose cost is merely "thousands of dollars a year" if you join a club and pay dues, and "hundreds of thousands of dollars" if you actually want to own and maintain your own boat. Is that a "criticism" of sailboat racing? I would propose it is not. Even if Magic was super-expensive, that's simply a fact, not a criticism. And there are plenty of people / kids on a budget who buy 50-100 dollars worth of cards and stop there. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the page is missing this common criticism. I read this page, in order to research this information, and I was surprised to find it completely missing. I am not surprised to see this discussion in the Talk section, and I hope that the MTG page will be more than a list of selling points. 71.235.10.190 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tap: Max´s Game

Where is this movie? http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP:_Maxova_hra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.66.117 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Going Infinite"

"Going infinite" is a term, whose origins are unknown, that has been adapted by the Magic community to describe a particular lifestyle some Magic players live. "Going infinite" can be correlated to "Free-rolling", a commonly used poker term, in that the player has stopped putting their own money into the game and completely strived off of their play skills and tournament success to continue playing. For example: A player enters a tournament that originally cost them 500 dollars for all expenses, granted you have to start with some sort of bank roll, or funds, to begin this "infinite" lifestyle. After finishing the tournament, said player walks out with 1000 dollars, netting a profit of 500. The player then uses the 500 in winning to enter another tournament and continue to prosper off of successful tournament winnings. Magic: The Gathering has allowed very successful and skilled players to continue an "infinite" lifestyle with the establishment of Pro Players Club, set up at the Pro Tour London in 2005. The Pro Players Club awards these players with benefits, such as appearance fees, all expenses paid traveling and hotel stays, along with the opportunity to achieve a higher Pro Level status as the year of play progresses. The Pro Players Club goes up to level 8, where one gets all airfare and hotel stay paid for, along with up to 500 dollars for each appearance at weekly tournaments. One can accumulate upwards of ~50,000 in expenses and tournament appearance earnings throughout the year. The tide symbol is used as an approximate because airfare and hotel stays fluctuate all the time.

Few players are skilled enough to achieve the ability of "going infinite" because the credentials seem almost unattainable. Getting to level 8 is a milestone to say the least. Yuuya Watanabe is far and away the most consistent player in the game right now. He continues to be at the top of the standings in Pro Level play and is also the defending Player of the Year. Other players, such as Brian Kibler, Luis-Scott Vargas, Paulo Vito Damo de Rosa, and Jon Finkel are also some of the top players and the game and have seen level 8 before. Every Magic player that plays on the Pro level strives to become a level 8, and most will stop at nothing to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanx010 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"First" trading card game

Using the publisher as a source for this fact is probably a bad idea, but a quick google search for "first trading card game" provided to guinness world records links, note they use the word modern or patent . I think these would be better sources, but cannot access them at this time and think that "modern" or "patenet" are important to the discussion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Color Pie" or "Pentagon of Colors"

So, there have been recent modifications in the Colors section changing the term 'Pentagon of Colors' to 'Color Pie'. Both of these terms are correct, however the image that we are currently using depicts the 'Pentagon of Colors'. If people insist on using the 'Color Pie' terminology, then can someone provide a free image to use, otherwise I will (again) revert the recent change. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in talking about a "Color Pie" (if that's the most commonly used term for it) and just captioning the image with explanatory prose ("The five colors of Magic. Those adjacent to one another are "allied" and often have similar, complementary abilities."). --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon. Nothing about the picture suggests the need for removal. But at the same time, nothing about the picture declares that it is a pentagon or a pie. Just recaption it. On a side note, both the pentagon and color pie should receive mentions as both have been used in the past by Magic's parent company. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable Cards

How are notable cards decided? Yea, there's some really good and unusual cards in that section of each expansion, but what's the criteria?Supernerd11 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I would simply say that it is notable if it has a source noting it as such. Like if you have a website page devoted to talking about a certain card. Then it can be cited. Any notable card is eligible for deletion right now without being cited. Also these citations must be from a secondary source (meaning not from Wizards of the Coast). Leitmotiv (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's generally a tricky question. To understand a forest, it helps to talk about some specific trees in it, but which ones? I agree that secondary sources are ideally the best, although that is potentially still "too easy" a criterion. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uses outside the game

I was watching the Mini Minotaur video and saw a parody Magic card, so I put it on this page. It was quickly reverted due to the fact that it's just a quick glimpse, but shouldn't that still be mentioned? Tobuscus is pretty well known, after all. (I'm not mad, just curious) Supernerd11 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still way too minor. There are entire Magic "celebs" like Brian Kibler who spend all their Internet time talking about Magic rather than some of it and Magic The Gathering fansites that aren't currently mentioned because there isn't enough room in the article. And for incidental mention, well, Day9, a StarCraft streamer, spent a few entire episodes talking about going to a Magic tourney, and even got a special invitation to a larger tournament from WotC, and that's merely spending "some" time on Magic! Never mind references that surely happened in the 1990s that have since been forgotten... a quick glimpse is nothing. It'd have to be somebody literally on the scale of Barack Obama to have a mere passing reference made by them be relevant enough to be mentioned in this article. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wizards guys were also super stoked when they found out, that Peter Parker plays M:tG. Seriously, he has an Invasion poster in the Spider Man poster on the wall movie from 2002. (https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/askwizards/0908) In the end most of these things are just random bits of trivia, though... OdinFK (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks (pretty cool bit about Spider-Man by the way)Supernerd11 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Mtgcard

Template:Mtgcard creates an external link. Was there a discussion somewhere why to use it even though it goes against the standard way external links are dealt with (=removed)? See what Wikipedia is not. I can see its usefullness (helps the reader to see the card immediately etc.) but the same could be said about many other external links, especially pictures. (A picture is worth a thousand words so why not include links to picture into the text of an article ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion, but the fact that the {{mtgcard}} template even exists is probably a sign that it was agreed to do it. My question now is, how does one link to Black Lotus on Gatherer count as too many? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The very first WP:EXT guidline states: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." That's why useful links are placed in the External Links section. I do not claim that one link is excessive (BTW there are 3 ext. links in the body of the article) but that it is/may be inappropriate (If I use the External Links Template terms (="Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references.") per WP:EXT. The guidleline says "normally" and there are exceptions, for example linking directly to government Bills, or patents. But they serve instead reference ("Aaccording to Bill No 7777,..."), whereas MTG template here, and any other pictures elsewhere, usually just illustrate the topic, and have, therefore, their own places to be, such as Gallery or Wikimedia Commons. So my question is what was the reasoning behind the cration of this template; where and how to use so that it does not conflict with WP:EXT. But perhaps this is not a place to ask. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The main reason we don't actually use many card images is that they're all copyrighted. So we have to claim fair use on every single use of every single image, and that's a major obstacle. So replacing each instance of the template with an image is not a reasonable solution. It might be better to double check each template transclusion to make sure it's really necessary, because I bet we could get by without most of the times its used. lifebaka++ 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By no means did I suggest to replace these template links with external links to pictures! ;-) But I do as you say. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Psychographic profiles

Are there any reliable third-party sources talking about Johnny and friends? All I can find are either not reliable enough or from Wizards, but they're a pretty important part of the game and should be added in. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I readded your section. We can use a primary source in this instance to cement the content. The third party content that CombatWombat is having a problem with, can now be added to flesh it out. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be removed, or perhaps moved. Psychographic profiles are very interesting and might be a worthy addition to a spin-off article called "Design of Magic: The Gathering" or the like, but it's simply too remote in relevance for a main "Magic" article. This article is already too long; this section will make it even longer. If we wanted to make it longer anyway, I'd think something like a fuller history of the game & set release history would be a more worthy inclusion than the profiles. (But to be clear, I'm not advocating a longer history section be included, I'm simply noting there are *lots* of Magic related things we could stuff in this article if we wanted.) SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the two best ways to promote an article to FA adding more refs and adding more information? Set release history is too bulky to go into here, that's why each block has its own page, but I'd think a fuller history would be good. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding information isn't necessarily bad at this point. If we get enough new information, I would recommend a splitting of the article into two or more related articles. I say, let's continue on the path we are on, and once we have figured out how to split and have enough info to do so, we can. Here's an article on article size that may help. Magic Design, History, and Gameplay could be new articles that we expand upon if enough content and interest is provided. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status

This article is missing many citations, it has entire paragraphs where things are uncited. Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. As it stands, this is not meeting the GA criteria and is in danger of losing its status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with that, but what exactly do you mean with "Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts"? OdinFK (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Storyline

I rewrote some parts of the storyline section. The aim was to integrate some parts on how Magic stories are used and how this has changed over the years. That also helps (I hope) to get at least a little bit away from the in-universe style that is always problematic in these kinds of things. On the other hand I didn't include any references so that brings its own problems. I think basically everything I have written has at some point been explained by Mark Rosewater in his column on dailymtg. If you think anything is particularly needing of reference, please annotate it and I will try to dig up a citation. However, as that one will probably come from MaRo it must be considered a primary source, so that helps only so much. But then this is a problem every article about M:tG is going to have to some extent... OdinFK (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Trusting a games seller or developer to accurately describe it.

Currently in the lead "Magic: The Gathering" is described as "the first collectible card game" The only sources that say that are the developer of the game, who has a vested interest in calling it that, and the seller of the game who has a monetary interest in calling it that. The only third party source describes it as "the first modern collectible card game". When we describe McDonald's hamburgers do we say "the best hamburgers in the world" because McDonald's marking material says that? Of course not. We look for third party sources for it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you take a close look at source number 4 which is a secondary source, it clearly states "FIRST." Do your research, get your bias off this page (because you also do this on the CCG page).

Since you are incapable of reading the source material, I will spell it out for you. Source no. 4 for the disputed item in question, states on page no. 2, third paragraph from the bottom, that Magic was "The first trading card game of its kind in the world." The source is secondary and is a peer reviewed article from the University of Washington. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And his source for that comment is? I'll give you a hint, it's Richard Garfield, the developer of the game, who as I have already said has a vested interest in calling it the first game. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, however, your argument that it may not be the first CCG has yet to be substantiated. Probably because you can't prove a negative. What we have here at this moment (and on the CCG page) is a peer reviewed article from a University which is in contrast to your statements above. As for your remark about Garfield, that sounds like you are doing original research. Leave the original research (that we can later cite) to the professionals. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying we should put in "Magic: The Gathering is the first game played with cards" because a negative cannot be proven? That is the worst logic I have ever heard. I don't need to prove anything, the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that it is the first collectible card game. The only WP:secondary WP:reliable source you have provided says it is the first *modern* collectible card game, a phrase I think we should use. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proving anything sir, I'm merely citing literature. The burden of proof is on you because of your bias in eliminating anything to the contrary. Your bias exposes your opinion and what you believe which has not been substantiated with any of your own sources. Where are the sources that say it is NOT the first CCG? There are none! As for the "modern" citation, or any other unrelated citation for that matter, you will get many conflicting reports and it is best to use judgment in comparing them. When most sources state "first", and the odd outlier exists stating something different, it may be that it is different because it is not fully researched. Using your own logic, where is Guinness's source of info? We don't know. What we do know, is that Guinness is a commercial product and not peer-reviewed like the University of Washington piece is, which casts some doubt on it. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is with the reliability of the sources that have an unqualified "first" they are all WP:PRIMARY sources, which if you would read that *policy*: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", in this case you are misusing them. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. " The one "reliable secondary source" you have qualifies the "first" with the word "modern", again, go back to my original statement, we should not rely on the developer or seller to accurately describe their own game. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the University piece makes it unqualified when compared say to the commercial source you keep referring to? Both are unclear as to where they get their information from, but one is peer-reviewed from a University and has other citations. Guinness offers zero citations. What about it makes it more credible? Where is the source stating that Magic is not the first? There is none, so by default, or until a better source comes along, I think the easiest solution is to leave it as is until a challenger comes along. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

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

The Gathering

Are we certain that the Starcraft cheatcode references MTG and not the highlander series or movies? I'd like some actual reference for that.

Too many references in introduction

The opening introduction

First published in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast, Magic was the first trading card game produced and it continues to thrive, with approximately twelve million players as of 2011.

Has too many references. I would recommend shortening the amount.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this has been contested too many times that all the references are needed. It should stay. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly has been contested? The number of players? That it was the first of its kind? That it continues to thrive? Surely not, that it is a TCG, right? Some of the references predate the 2011 of figure of 12 million so they either don't apply to that, or are outdated. Btw does this qualify as a credible, independent source? It gives a current number of abuot 20 million players. If it qualifies the number in the introduction should probably be updated. OdinFK (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That it is the first of its kind is in dispute. And one reference stating that it is, doesn't seem to be good enough. If you go back in the history you can see the edit wars over that one single claim. The Guardian is a secondary source so it will work fine to update the player count. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but nine references for that short, innocuous second sentence is ridiculous, and makes the opening paragraph look ugly and unwieldy. Just because some editors have a problem with the claim does not mean we need all nine. I have removed six of them, leaving the three I feel are the strongest. Everything stated by the sentence is still fully referenced in those three. --Ashenai (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I almost reverted. But I tell you what. I agree with you. It is ugly. I want to see the excess gone too. However, if this gets contested again, they're going back up. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Major Characters

In the storyline section there is a part about major characters. Do we need that subsection? And if yes are there any criteria for inclusion?

Also shouldn't everything in the main Magic: The Gathering article be easily understandable to somebody without knowledge of the game? Take a look at the Jace description for example

"The blue Lorwyn Five Planeswalker from the plane of Vryn, Jace has visited a variety of planes, including Zendikar, Ravnica, and Lorwyn. While in his adopted home of Ravnica, he helped the dragon Niv-Mizzet and human (unknowingly a planeswalker) Ral Zarek solve the Implicit Maze, becoming a living, physical embodiment of the law of Ravnica, known as the Guildpact."

In just two sentences there are about a dozen terms that are unclear to somebody without knowledge of the game. On a side note, between all this fan lore Jace's main gist was forgotten: Jace is a telepath/mind mage. OdinFK (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that parts of this article need to be shortened and split-off as necessary. There is a lot of information in here that is not really necessary to understanding the game. I'm going to make some major edits to try and shorten things down. It really is very in-universe (especially the last half) and as the centerpiece article with many child articles it doesn't need this much. Crazynas ^t 20:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Invalid Patent

This should be mentioned as Patents are very important. It was made public knowledge before the patent was applied for (2 years before). Even tho the patent was given, it would not hold up due to it being made public knowledge before the patent application.--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not how patents work. You need to provide a reliable source that says the patent is invalid. You can't just claim it. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Really that's not how patents work? Please explain or delete me asking you to explain. I do like all the other non referenced claims in the article, bet if I deleted them u would be upset for following the wiki rules...... LOL I like your baseless claim without reference! Please tell me about how the patent works.....--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

hows this? theres a lot more if u want http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/#51d60485fe73

http://www.phoenixip.com.au/patents/keep-secret-public-disclosure-patent-validity/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RzZydAHtUoIC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=public+knowledge+invalidates+patents&source=bl&ots=yJGpMv_HSU&sig=RLD-eF2osH1kEHA-3ItX7KscMd4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmx-fs7OHKAhWBVZQKHSTBDTAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=public%20knowledge%20invalidates%20patents&f=false--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand about the request. You don't need generic sources about patents, you need specific sources about the Magic patents. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, do you have a source that WotC's patent has been declared invalid? The patent is valid unless a court or the patent office has declared otherwise. "Public knowledge" does not mean an inventor cannot patent their own invention afterwards. It means you can't patent something (which you did not invent) that is public knowledge, i.e. prior art. Your own sources back this up, as the 'date of invention' is not always the date of the patent filing. (Which was in 1995)

The article already covers the fact that some believe the claims in the patent are invalid, so there's nothing more to say here. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL if u patent it after its become public knowledge the patent wont stand up. I bet your a patent lawyer? DID U EVEN READ THE ARTICLES? The date its valid can not before the filling! WOW TRY READING! Well I'm off to delete things not referenced OUCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertttttttt (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Magic can be played by two or more players in various formats, the most common of which uses a deck of 60+ cards, either in person with printed cards or using a deck of virtual cards through the Internet-based Magic: The Gathering Online, on a smartphone or tablet, or other programs. Each game represents a battle between wizards known as "planeswalkers", who employ spells, artifacts, and creatures depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents. Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, the gameplay of Magic bears little similarity to pencil-and-paper adventure games, while having substantially more cards and more complex rules than many other card games. An organized tournament system and a community of professional Magic players has developed, as has a secondary market for Magic cards. Magic cards can be valuable due to their rarity and utility in gameplay. Often the prices of a single card can be anywhere from a few cents to a few hundred dollars, and in some instances thousands of dollars."

NO REFERENCE SHALL I DELETE IT FOR YOU? No no u want to apply rules absurdly one way and then ignore them when u want. This is why wiki blog is a joke--Ertttttttt (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is from the article lead, which summarizes the article that follows. WP:LEADLINK will explain to you why references aren't strictly required here. The details are expanded and referenced in the gameplay section. -- ferret (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I noticed that there are some out-of-date facts that should be changed because of the Oath of the Gatewatch release. This includes the addition of pure colorless mana, the current standard blocks, and the number of sets in a block (The last two are under Organized Play.) How should we go about this? Buscus 3 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not much to be "gone about". By all means just go ahead and get those corrections in there :) OdinFK (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://gama.org/OriginsAwards/tabid/2720/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexism/misogyny in M:TG community

There's been an edit war going on the last few days over this, starting with an IP's POV/biased edits here: diff. This was reverted, then unreverted. I then trimmed most of the bias and unsourced parts out, leaving a core sourced sentence here: diff. This was reverted and edit warred over for a bit more and was ultimately removed. After a day or so (Enough time to try to dodge 3RR....), it was added back in what I view as an even more biased/POV edit than before, here: diff.

This new edit has some hefty NPOV issues. I do believe it's worthwhile to get something into the article about sexism in the MTG community, but we need quality sources and neutral text. The latest version is heavily leaning on low quality sources, has some prose/grammar issues, and a bit of OR in the last sentence, so I reverted it for now. Let's see some discussion and a consensus on what to add to the article. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors: @CombatWombat42 and Leitmotiv -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI CW42 was blocked by Sergecross73 for 3 days for edit warring on this article. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted. No rush, this talk page will be here in 3 days. :) -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for at least starting up a discussion, something both of the main editors involved have still failed to do. I've fully protected the page for a week, so this doesn't continue again once a block ends. I can extend it if it starts up again, or remove it altogether if a consensus arises prior to a week happening. Just leave me a note on my talk page if you'd like any action on me regarding it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well not exactly @Sergecross73:, I did try to start a conversation on Combat's talk page, but it was called out as harassment. Since all those spurious charges were trumpeted against me, I've lost a little bit of interest during that time. But, I'm still willing to work things out.

As I stated in my edit notations before Combat disputed them, I reviewed the article and their usage of the term "misogyny" and it seems to be at odds with what they're describing, which is the over-sexualization of women on the cards - for those who don't know, misogyny means the "hatred of women." One case describes misogynistic playmats, but it's really hard to know what they're talking about without an example given, and it could easily be a misuse of the word again. That and the article refers to a lot of third party products (still unsure if they really mean mysogyny or something else altogether) but the wikistatement that was cited by this article specifically mentions the "cards." That's a world of difference, all things considered. I see that allegedly some cards were "altered" to depict rape, but that would also fall under a third party product since it was not originally authorized by the Wizards of the Coast. I suppose there is room for a mention somewhere about this, but it wouldn't be under Reception. It would fall under something probably new, like "Player Community" or something. But having that as the only item under Player Community would give undue weight to one point of view. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You can probably ignore this misogyny crusade; it is an unsourced effort on the part of feminists to get their hooks into hobbies as consultants or commentators, similar to what Anita Sarkeesian did for video games. Her Kickstarter to produce videos under the name "Feminist Frequency" has underperformed and, although she collected $150,000, has announced she has quit after producing only six short videos on the issue. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture?

Would it be worth having a section on references to MTG in popular culture? For example, the TV situation comedy THE BIG BANG THEORY has a spoof of MTG where the characters play Mystic Warlords of Ka'a and throw down cards with crazy names, as a spoof of collector-card play. They refer to which card beats which, and say, "EVERYTHING beats Enchanted Bunny!" The game was started up for real as a free online game for a time. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless a source directly calls it a spoof of MTG (versus hundreds of other CCGs), it shouldn't be included here. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Many other pages have such references, but is that actually recommended? Seems very much like trivia to me in most cases. I mean sure, if the next James Bond is named Magic: The Gathering Royal, but otherwise?

Reception section

Is it really appropriate to start the Reception section with 'some consider the game very addictive ... cardboardcrack ...'? People have said that, but the people are not even named, and it sounds tabloid style. Also for the very addictive part the cited article is called 'Confessions of an MTGO addict'. MTGO is Magic Online so the article doesn't even apply a 100% to MTG as a whole.

The SCG article is from a guy who writes a few paragraphs about his addiction. Turns out many things are addictive if you like them. Most articles about potentially addictive things (coffee, chocolate, ...) don't have an addiction section, though. I would have no qualms having a section about addiction if there was scientific research on this topic, but this way it is just 'one man said...'.

Finally the USA Today article is from 2004. That is a 12 year old reference for a 22 year old game. I don't think it is justified to make the statement that Magic is called cardboard crack based on a reference that old, one that is mostly vague and all over the place in its description of the game.

I removed the first line of the section on these grounds. I do understand that Magic has been criticized and that there are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize Magic, but these criticism should be based on quality refences. OdinFK (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@OdinFK: WP:WTW and WP:RS. The USA Today link should probably be re-added (even though it is old--we do a bad-enough job ensuring we've got a solid reception for continuing games), but the others don't look like they should be retained. --Izno (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I actually re-edited it in, but I did a bad job of annotating my edits, sorry. The next paragraph elaborated on the positive takeaways from the USA Today article. So I added a sentence about addiction to that, and re-instated the ref. Should be fine now. OdinFK (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Occultist themes

In an unrelated topic, this paragraph: "For the first few years of its production, Magic: The Gathering featured a small number of cards with names or artwork with demonic or occultist themes, in 1995 the company elected to remove such references from the game. In 2002, believing that the depiction of demons was becoming less controversial and that the game had established itself sufficiently, Wizards of the Coast reversed this policy and resumed printing cards with "demon" in their names," should be moved to Reception. It fits the needs of that section and is less relevant to the section it is in now. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Leitmotiv (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I think that it is fine in the Marketing section, the way it reads right now it was a marketing decision, not one made because of (pre-existing) public reception... Although I think it should probably move up to paragraph two to make things a bit more chronological. Crazynas ^t 04:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it can work in Marketing, but since Reception exists, I think that is a better fit. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be moved to Reception as well. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception as received by the less than 1% of the population who most prob never have anything to do with such games anyway? Who cares?--Thelawlollol (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's probably useful to include as it is part of Magic's history and directly led to changes in art for cards (Unholy Strength) and other decisions not to include as many demons for years.gujamin (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

criticism/controversy section

i miss a section that would sum up the downsides of this ongoing game and story writing process. mtg is never finished as it keeps adding new sequels to the multiverse storyline and keeps changing the cardgame, adding new rules, new card categories, new card layout designs,and changing retroactively the gameplay buy shifting the winning conditions. i am not arguing that the game does not have its merits, or that it would deserve a negative review, but i think that a section to summarize the criticizm would make the article more balanced. otherwise the article reads as an advertisment, bearing the one sided view of the product's developers and the company selling it. to help starting this section, my 2cents: the game's underlying principle is to make its customers feel powerful buy buying the newest cards that as a general rule beat the older ones (with the notable exception of an out of print set of 9 cards that arebanned from use in most official playing events and are practically non available). the chabce for winning the game is heavily influenced by the money spent for acquisition of stronger and rarer cards, that then soon become obsolete and outpowered by newly invented game mechanics and new cards from subsequent expansions. thres also a tendency of inflation, new rules and game mchanics introduced every few months that are not necessarily adding to the fun, but keep relatively new players in the buying cycle. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Re adding a criticism section: see Wikipedia:Criticism, in general these sections are not encouraged. They tend to be a magnet for random "person X said something bad about Y" drop-offs. Instead, integrate criticism throughout the article, and note that criticism means both good AND bad criticism.

Re your feelings on obsoleted cards: That's nice, but Wikipedia is not your blog. It is for summarizing notable published third-party opinions, not original research, or original opinions in this case. SnowFire (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just want to reinforce what SnowFire has said. Wikipedia is not a Blog, and the use of Controversy Sections is not something to just add to every article.Apriestofgix (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It does read like a press release form the Owners Press Office, as do alot of articles as companies will spend the time and effort to make it so. The game has to change to make it interesting or people would get board. It has the basis of all card games, PAY TO WIN,(Simple supply and demand as in everything in life), but it also does involve alot of skill unlike alot of other games.--TobyWongly (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Patent applied for after the game had been released

No mention of the Patent and has it ever been tested in court? (likely to fail). There several games which contain parts that are clearly set out in the MTG Patent! --TobyWongly (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says the patent is likely to fail? Or on the patent in general? If you can find one, great, it could definitely be discussed more. Otherwise, we can't include it.

As a side comment, the courts have upheld FAR STUPIDER patents with completely proven "prior art" (Immersion v. Sony for one of many examples), so as a personal opinion, "likely to fail" is premature. But... neither of our opinions matters, what matters is what reliable sources say. SnowFire (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009010736/http://www.deutscherspielepreis.de/p060.php4 to http://www.deutscherspielepreis.de/p060.php4

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://faculty.bschool.washington.edu/skotha/website/cases%20pdf/Wizards%20of%20the%20coast%201.4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417062722/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Judges Sexual Offender Controversy

I think this section needs to be there; WOTC, Channel Fireball, and The Judges program have issued statements and there is a history there. —Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2018‎ (UTC)

No, because it was a ludicrous astroturfed "controversy." WotC did make an official change, but it was a single press release which doesn't nearly rate a mention in the 25 year history of Magic. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with SnowFire; this doesn't seem to be significant, and it certainly wouldn't mention an entire section in the article. There is no evidence that reliable secondary sources have taken any interest in the matter; the sources you discussed are all primary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Standard

The Meta is getting figured out quickly (mainly due to the web and data), resulting in infrequent card bans. Some mentioning of this I think should be in the standard section? —Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2018‎ (UTC)

No, players whining about the metagame is as old as the hills and common to all games - the Hearthstone article would be endless whines about the meta or demands to nerf card XYZ for example. Maybe including something in the articles Kaladesh, etc. on cards that got banned is fine, though. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. So players "Whining" or "Endless Whines," is the new criteria to mention it on the MTG wiki? I think at least mentioning it in the Standard section is valid. If it wasn't an issue WOTC would not be banning cards or discussing the meta. —Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2018‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk)

Could you provide a reliable secondary source that discusses the meta, the "speed" with which it is figured out, and the frequency of card bans that result from this? -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Link references to the Commander format to the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_Commander Cheshyrp (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo in article -- Kaldesh vs. Kaladesh.

I found this in the Product and Marketing section. I do not yet have enough authority on wikipedia to fix it, however, so if someone sees this, please fix it.

   Each set since Kaldesh (Kaladesh) features two Planeswalker decks. They contain a 60-card pre-constructed deck with an exclusive Planeswalker, as well as several exclusive cards, two booster packs from the set they accompany, as well as a rule guide and a card board box with an image of the included Planeswalker.

Dactorwatson (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. [1] Thank you for spotting that typo :) ♠TomasBat 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Storyline section

The storyline section seems way too specific after the first 2-3 paragraphs. I don't think it is of much use to the casual reader to list all the individual storylines. After the first two paragraphs the main periods of note in Magic's storyline development seem to be the long storyline arc of the Weatherlight, the Mending-realted change in scope of the Planeswalkers (down from basically godhood), and finally the Gatewatch. Maybe the change from books and comics to developing the story in story articles on Wizards' own site should be mentioned, too. Does this make sense or am I wrong here? OdinFK (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Trading Card Games

Magic was the first trading card game created

Someone's got a conveniently short memory. Never heard of something called Top Trumps?

Nuttyskin (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The term TCG refers to a specific type of game. Magic: The Gathering was the first game of that type. Top Trumps might be a game and in some cases even be collectible/tradable, but it is not a TCG by the customary defintion of the term. OdinFK (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. Though the claim is made in the lede (now weaselled to the first trading card game to gain widespread acceptance), the immediate problem is that this is not explicitly stated anywhere further down the article, AND therefore cannot offer ANY source (much less a credible one) to support the claim. As it's been so hotly defended (above), clearly this claim can be quickly substantiated, before it gets removed as hyperbolic fanboy editorializing.

Speaking of that: the sentence continues on with and it continues to thrive, which needs rewording. The word "thrive" never reappears in the article, and I therefore suspect such ready use of superlative opinion indicates a page shot through with fanboyism. At very least, the claim is weak and getting weaker by the minute, being supported only by three aging articles (1998, 2008, 2015), the last from The Guardian (rather than, say, a toy-industry journal) and entirely unsubstantiated in that article — which quotes a developer and two hardcore players and otherwise resembles an op/ed or a class paper or personal blog rather than an article of any depth. For the moment, I've flagged this as needing a better source, but the claim REALLY needs to be updated a few years.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend you visit collectible card game for an in depth review on the history of CCGs. It has been discussed at length. Your argument that the sources are old, is entirely invalid. Old sources doesn't make them wrong. Any new source still has to adhere to the old information that was established long ago, or else it can be seen as revisionist. As for Top Trumps, it too has been discussed at the CCG article. I would take a long hard look at the definition of CCG. Top Trumps does not fit the criteria. All sources worth their salt have Magic as the first and it's not fanboy editing. If you have a new source that claims otherwise, then we can review it, but until then there is no debate.

Additionally, the claim that Magic was the first is directly supported by a peer-reviewed paper from the University of Washington cited in the lede. It is no longer required to be cited later in the article at that point, unless you want to be redundant. The fact is many, many sources have Magic as the first, and we could stack them up to no end and accomplish very little. All we need is 1. We currently have 3. No more are required. If you are looking to continue the debate about which is first, I would take the conversation to the main collectible card game article first. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Define Eternal format in the body

@Apriestofgix: thanks for your recent addition. Could you help us by defining (and sourcing) the keyword "Eternal" in the Formats section? Otherwise it should be removed, per MoS. Elfabet (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not great at adding citations, but this article mentions the only two formats Wizards considers Eternal are Legacy and Vintage. Apriestofgix (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of tempted to leave it out in that case, since it feels like an unnecessary classificiation and kind of falls under WP:JARGON. Elfabet (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is used to define the difference between "Eternal" and "None-rotating" which affects the legality of different sets, so it is defining to the format definition. I'll take a stab at flushing out what Eternal means so it's not just jargon. Apriestofgix (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that explicitly defines "eternal". It doesn't have to be from WotC. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Does a netflix series announcement belong in History section?

Does this belong under History, or should we just join its source with the Film/TV header under other media/products? Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It fits the product/marketing section much better, doesn't it? The history section looks upon key developments in the history of the game, but it's hard to tell if this will have been an important development. OdinFK (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Pyramid review

In case anyone wants to use it, there was a review from Pyramid #4 (Nov./Dec., 1993): [2] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Colors of Magic

Hello all that are part of the Magic project here, and to those that aren't and are reading this; welcome! I think we should consider reducing the content of this section and/or updating the picture for this section. I believe that new players should use the resources provided directly by Wizards of the Coast for this kind of thing. Ender4511 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It was until a few days ago much larger. I've already trimmed it back to just briefly touching on the essentials of what the colors typically do. Understanding how the colors are essential to MTG though is a bit more important than the colors themselves. --Masem (t) 14:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ender4511 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Colors Led By:

I saw that someone added who leads each color to the color section. As it has no source, and isn't relevant, should it be removed? Waffle Attack11 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes; the lore of MTG is not very much discussed at any depth outside of Wizards' own publications (that I've seen), and so in describing the game at a high level, it is unnecessary to name them. (I think one or two are named in the section on story development but that's out of necessity). We're sorta already at a point in this article that we're a bit too heavy on reliance on Wizards' material (first party) for details, though I am pretty sure just a bit of effort we can find third-party sources to confirm on gameplay basics. But the leaders of each color mana school is definitely too much. --Masem (t) 18:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's also just factually inaccurate. The mentioned planeswalkers are usually used as prime examples of users of the respective colors, but they by no means lead the color. Color is a fundamental quality of mana and the resulting magic. Saying blue is led by Jace is somewhat like saying Uranium is led by Emmanuel Macron. OdinFK (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gerrard Capashen" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Gerrard Capashen should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Gerrard Capashen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Misspelled Guilds in Diagram

Some of the guilds are misspelled in the diagram on this page. Specifically:

• "Selesmija" should be "Selesnya"
• "Azarius" should be "Azorius"
• "Grimis" should be "Grixis"

I'd recommend that the diagram be changed or removed, particularly since there is no other reference to the guilds, shards, or wedges on the page.

Cosinity (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not misspelled, it's just in German. That said, I agree it's not a useful picture, so removed it. SnowFire (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Trim Writing and storyline section

I copied over the information from the Writing and storyline section to the Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) article since that article needed improvement (per the MOS:INUNIVERSE tag and the 2016 AfD discussion). Given the size of this article (>123kB), it might be worth trimming the Writing and storyline section. I'm not the most familiar with the topic so I'm unsure which information should be prioritized in a smaller summary. Also, I think we should removed the table from Comics section since that information is in both the Multiverse article & the List of Magic: The Gathering novels. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Black Lotus record auctions

Masem just reverted an edit of mine with the justification "having a couple points does not hurt". I actually think it does. Why do we want to have multiple historical reference points for Black Lotus auctions? The article is quite bloated as it is. I don't really see how an arbitrary second reference point improves the quality of the article. The first gives the reader an idea of how expensive Magic cards can be, but how does the second auction add significant additional insights to the reader? OdinFK (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously having more than a couple record points would be overkill. However, one key difference between the two current ones is that the prior holder is an unsigned version, the new $500k one is signed, and that does have a factor in the pricing. I would agree that if, say, tomorrow, a new record for an unsigned Black Lotus (or any other of the banned 7 ) came along, we can replace the old unsigned record. --Masem (t) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Signed vs unsigned is a fair point I suppose. It begs the question how much of the price can be attributed to the value of the signature of the late Chris Rush, but that is a real as well as unknown quantity. Maybe it would be possible to point out the general fact that some collectors value signatures and other dislike them, and that specifically in this context it is unclear in which way the signature, especially of a deceased artist, played a role in the price tag. OdinFK (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Such a proposal would best be suited for Magic: The Gathering finance. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

How many packs sold?

Why is it so hard to find out how many booster packs have been sold of a particular TCG? You search "Best Selling" and it only gives you current popularity 2601:346:C201:60C0:B5F2:DF40:9BD3:BCF2 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your question is more suited to Talk:Collectible card game; and WP:NOTAFORUM (but I'll say, blame the companies for not releasing the data...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (4th nomination)

Interested editors may want to comment there, particularly regarding if anything is rescuable, perhaps by a merger here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow up on this - I've outlined specific areas that still need work (Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#AfD Cleanup 2021) so any help would be appreciated. I think the area that is going to be the most difficult to source is actually the History section. I found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect card back

The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)

The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupernova (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but what would you like us to do? You can WP:BEBOLD and replace the image with a correct one, it's not hard to scan a corect MtG card... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It is easy to scan in a card, but I don't recommend it. We can use a digital version used by WotC under fair use. It will also be higher quality than any physical scan of a card. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to KingSupernova for spotting the incorrect image! However, looking at the current image their explanation is not quite correct. The image is not only slightly different in the "A" but also has a "TM" after "Deckmaster" which no printed card to my knowledge ever had. I just spotted this myself, but Dwedit also points it out on the image's talk page. Anyway, it seems to be true that this is a stock image that Wizards used for a time on their website, but it is certainly not optimal to be used in this way here. OdinFK (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right! I didn't notice the TM, which wasn't on Alt 4th cards. KingSupernova (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded a correct version of the cardback. However it is not without its own flaws. Its centering is a little off, it's darker, and it's not an official image. I recommend finding a better one at some point. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Magicarea.png

Can anyone translate this image to English? It would be good for English article on Magic: The Gathering. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for image help added at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Oct 2021#Magic: The Gathering rules. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean convert the image? Jugador is player, mano is hand, cemeterio is graveyard, biblioteca is library, and en juego doesn't nicely translate, but I believe it just means Battlefield. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv Right, all we need is for someone to edit the image and change the text to English. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Done! Cleaned up the image a tiny smidge too. Tried to keep it faithful to the original as possible, including font. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv Excellent job, thank you! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sets following Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty

Hi all! We should try to keep updating this article when they release new sets, or potentially link to a page that lists the expansions. This should serve as a reminder to future editors to be bold and add new sections if they visit this article and notice that newer additions have not yet been included! : ) Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

2 (Two) issues with the page.

There is nothing talking about Draft play; and there is no reference on game pieces except for the actual cards themselves. 2600:1700:93B0:6B50:BC6A:C67:7A27:7D40 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Release date

As far as I know the release day of mtg was at Gen Con Milwaukee in 93, so exactly 30 years ago. (19.08.1993 and not the 05.08.1993) So my question is: Where did the author of this article get the info about the 05.08.1993? FinksJuice (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

See Magic: The Gathering#First releases, which states that it was premiered at Origins Game Fair in July 1993 and had a general release on August 5, per the archived Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited Editions published by Wizards of the Coast. Mindmatrix 12:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What about GenCon Milwaukee, which took place from 19.08.1993?

https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/1993

wasn‘t it released there to the public for the first time? FinksJuice (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Garfield and others went on the road to promote MTG after the general release on August 5, stopping along the way towards GenCon to promote the release. They probably sold the most at GenCon, but it was already out to the public by then, as our article explains. Masem (t) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Rarity Section.

Hi, i recently made an image that describes the amount of common, uncommon, rare and mythic rare cards contained in Magic expansions. The italian section of Wikipedia has s rarity section that talks about these different rarities and the foil cards.

I'll leave the image here in case it can be useful to someone that wants to add that section here too.

Icovsworld (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Icovsworld: It seems the data are incorrect. For instance since Shards of Alara set there are no rare cards, but you can see in this article that this is not the case; there are other major errors in the image though. --Phyrexian ɸ 05:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It was probably due some incorrect filtering i've done on the dataset, i didn't know about this other article with all the correct data, i'll use it and redo all the numbers correctly, thanks! Icovsworld (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

it should be fine now! 93.41.120.168 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Without information on how this chart is being constructed and what the data sources is, it fails WP:V and WP:RS for use on Enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the colors is better than the rest

Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:

"The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."

As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. OdinFK (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Blue ;D Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I come to revive this topic. In a certain degree, it's practically true the statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" because if you check clearly, everyone thinks that maybe Red and Green are the best in terms of strength and direct damage. But even Blue and White aren't less just because they are defense and healing counterparts. Blue and White also have their own way of attacking which is different from Red and Green (which is direct damage at the opponent's creatures and the opponent himself) that are also useful, such as the venom cards and emptying the deck to your opponent. I believe that this statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" should be somewhere explained thoroughly in the article because it's important. What do you guys think? Please reply! Thanks! 190.231.171.103 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply... 181.110.70.239 (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it "none of the colours are better than the rest" is a statement, that cannot be proven in this matter-of-fact way. Magic is too big, dynamic and diverse for such a statement to mean a whole lot. You might find statements such as "In Legacy and Vintage blue is generally considered to be the most powerful colour". This is about perception, not facts and this might be added somewhere, but it is probably outside the scope of this article here.

The most meaningful thing going this direction, that I can think of to put in this article, is something like "Magic designers strive to balance the power level of the colours. Due the inherent difficulty of this task perfect balance is rarely achieved, but which colour ends up being strongest shifts over time." You can probably find some remark of Mark Rosewater to that end. If you want it in the article you got to dig for yourself, though. OdinFK (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories

For those familiar with the game, collecting and playing or both, the game contains cards of vampires and angels. I’d like to see this game added to Category:Vampires in games and Category:Angels in popular culture Twillisjr (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories should be defining, per WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Can you demonstrate that sources regularly refer to the fact that M:TG contains vampires and angels? M:TG contains nearly every fantasy (and many scifi) tropes that exist. We could put a million categories for dragons, vampires, elves, dwarves, orcs, angels, gods, demons, goblins, on and on. They are not defining. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Life-total, or life total?

In the article, both versions are used. We should standardize, and use just one version. I had never seen "life total" spelled with a hyphen before reading this article, so my initial impulse would be to use the version without the hyphen. Thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and standardized to "life total." Feel free to revert if there's a problem with this. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)