Talk:Magic: The Gathering core sets, 2009–2015

Proposed merge with Magic 2010, Magic 2011, Magic 2012, Magic 2013 and Magic 2014

These articles are one or more of the following:

Stubs
Unsourced
In-universe
Redundant to each other

Following the recent merge of Revised-10th edition, I propose we merge Magic '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 to a single article p b p 21:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, sir. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Wasn't that the whole idea anyway? OdinFK (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Origins

Was going to make a topic over at the MTG Wikiproject on this, but... where should Magic Origins go assuming it's still not actually a core set? I think this list is fine as a temporary holding place, but I'm not sure there's sufficient content for it to stand as a stand-alone set a la Fallen Empires or the like.

All of this is moot if WotC actually calls it a Core Set officially of course, but so far they haven't for a long time, only indirectly stating that the release in this timeframe would be a core set before "Magic Origins" had a name. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you're overthinking this. The supplied source for this article clearly states "The summer of 2015 will have the last core set release, and in 2016, the summer set will be the second set of the block that started in spring of 2016." Regardless of what you think the Magic Origins is, Wizards has said it is a core set. MaRo has also said it's a core set. This is a tempest in a teapot and worthy of being ignored.

Additionally, until you can provide a source that says Magic Origins is specifically not a core set, then you should refrain from deleting or changing the narrative of this article from what is already directly referenced. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv: Huh? It's exactly the reverse. Regardless of what you think Magic Origins is, Wizards has explicitly not said this is a Core Set. Same with Mark Rosewater! Are we reading different things?!? This is weird. Tumblr blog posts aren't reliable anyway, but if they were, your reference would be at best inconclusive, because MaRo didn't call it a core set, he used a modifier ("core set plus").

And yes, that's why I included the reference. Here's the last thing anyone at wizards.com has said about the issue:

Magic Origins is designed to be accessible to introductory players, like a core set, but with new mechanics that express these themes of growing over time. http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/whats-story-magic-origins-2015-02-27

Nowhere else in their Magic Origins page is it described as a core set. It is explicitly said in February to be like a Core Set, which would be a very misleading phrasing if it was a Core Set - nobody says the New York Yankees are "like a MLB baseball team". The burden is on you: if you'd like to claim Origins is a core set, please supply a direct reference to Wizards calling Magic Origins explicitly a core set! And not the Tumblr reference. SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like a core set, may just mean a core set, but you have this backwards again. You need to supply a source that it's anything but a core set, which you have not done. In other words, you need a source that says it is something like a supplemental set, or whatever. In the meantime, the source that you added on August 15th 2014 is provided on this very article: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mm/metamorphosis clearly states that this summer's 2015 set will be the "last core set." Until you can supply a source that directly contradicts this (at which point we would discuss it here), you'd do best to refrain from edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv: I was the one who added that article as a reference ages ago, so yes, I'm familiar with it. (EDIT: I see you've edited that fact in. I'm glad you noticed! When I wrote that, at the time, it DID appear as if Origins would be a Core Set, so that was accurate information as of August 2014.) That article was written a year ago and does not refer to Magic Origins explicitly, like I said and asked for. It's possible there was a change of plans in marketing. It's not like there's any difference. Let me put it to you this way: suppose Wizards never calls Magic Origins a core set, does not market it as such, and never lists it as such on their webpage, and it's 3 months later. Would you consider that MaRo's article a year ago would still mean Magic Origins was considered a core set? This is like citing a movie studio talking about an unnamed movie a year before release for information about the movie right now. It is, at best, of historical interest.

Of course, this isn't accurate: we do have more recent information. It's from two separate WotC articles / employees calling Magic Origins (by name) a variant on a core set. Not a core set. Again, are we reading the same thing?! All I ask for is this: an official Wizards source that says "Magic Origins [is a] core set." Not a variant. Not inspired by. Not similar to. Is a. And have it refer to Magic Origins by name. Otherwise it is purely Wikipedia:Original research to declare it really is a core set, even though Wizards has refused to call it such. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely see what you are saying, but as I've stated before, if there is an article that states specifically what Magic Origins is, it should be left as is because WotC has already stated what the summer set is (see your edit and my comments above). As for your insistent referral to the WotC suggesting it is "like a core set" or Maro saying "core set plus" this does nothing to negate their previous words no matter how old or "historical" it is. The fact of the matter is, a primary source has been provided stating exactly what Magic Origins is (you provided that) and if you want the article to state it as something different, the onus is on you to supply an article that specifically states what it is, which you have not done. "Core set plus," is still a core set. How does that not make it a core set?

The source you provided in 2014 is straight from the horse's mouth and specifically says that the set released in summer of 2015 is "a core set." That is not "a variant," "inspired by," "similar to," it IS. Regardless of the age. There are plenty of unrelated articles on Wikipedia that cite much, much older material and are completely fine. This is no different. Perhaps Wizards will release another article on what Magic Origins is and we should just hold off on editing until later? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I agree we should hold off! For example, if there was some way to be sure that it was *not* a Core Set (perhaps WotC explicitly says so), then it shouldn't be in this list at all. The problem is that, to me, the "neutral" thing to do is to not call it a Core Set because we don't have a source which does so. Also MaRo's Tumblr link is not going to fly as a source, see WP:SELFSOURCE, it's only useful for the likes of MaRo personal trivia.

Anyway, what we know now:

In August 2014, there was an unnamed core set planned to be released in 2015 which is the final core set.
In February 2015, Magic Origins was announced in the same time slot, and WotC called it "like a Core Set".

I'd argue we can reflect these two pieces of information safely and neutrally. Which... uh... is what my edit did? Again, take a look: I'm not saying anything my personal beliefs, I'm just quoting Wizards.

As far as old sources go, sure, old sources can be fine, but you have to make sure they're actually talking about the same thing and aren't outdated. The best analogy is to the likes of movies or books here, entities which are notable for changing a lot before release. What is a Core Set? Whatever Wizards calls a Core Set. From all the marketing materials released so far, they basically have never called it a Core Set yet. Which isn't to say they might not later or somewhere else, but for something so defined by company definitions / marketing, it isn't there yet. (Unless there's some recent source both of us missed.) SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're providing misleading information. MaRo's blogatog is not about his own Mark Rosewater wikiarticle, which is what WP:SELFSOURCE is referring to. The actual applicable info is WP:USERGENERATED which states a blog "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert." So actually, yes MaRo's blogatog/Tumblr is perfectly fit as source for this wikiarticle on Magic the Gathering. And MaRo has stated it is a core set plus. Core set, but more. How does that not make it a core set? Hint: It doesn't.

I'm not sure why you keep supplying inaccuracies like "because we don't have a source which does so." Yes we do. You supplied that source. It specifically says "The summer of 2015 will have the last core set release, and in 2016, the summer set will be the second set of the block that started in spring of 2016." That is pretty dead to rights. You may have a problem with the age of the article, but that is an entirely different matter. Again, it's a legitimate primary source that clearly states what the set released this summer is.

It's been clear all along what Magic Origins is - it fits the exact yearly slot of previous core sets, it has been described as "the last core set" and MaRo has described it as "core set plus." Anything you suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Primary sources have been supplied by both you and I that talk about this set as a "core set." Nothing to the contrary has been provided. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Tumblr is where MaRo can shoot from the hip and give his own personal thoughts on matters, there's no editor or anything. It's not guaranteed to be the official WotC line and sometimes isn't. That said, I suppose I'm fine with including it for now as long as we quote him in full, that he called it a "core set plus". We obviously have different interpretations as to what that means, as I take it as, if anything, confirmation it's *not* a core set, and you seem to take it as confirmation it *is* a core set, so... let the reader decide.

And per what I said before, I personally find the "modifiers" very important. I understand you disagree, but it's not disingenuous. 3 is not a prime number plus, or like a prime number: it *is* a prime number. I just want something similarly definitive. SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:USERGENERATED states, if a person is "an established expert" on a topic, you can use it. Clearly MaRo is an expert on Magic, he creates the very game we are discussing. So it's not just shooting from the hip. Now MaRo has stated he is the spokesman for Magic... Wizards has not denied that, but that would be a good example of WP:SELFSOURCE because he is discussing himself and making claims about himself which WotC has not specifically corroborated that I can see anywhere.

The edits you have made are fine, though I may fine tune them a small bit. As for your comment on it not being a core set. I don't get you. MaRo says the very word "core" and you act as if it's not even there. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Wizards declares that Origins is a Core Set, we shouldn't have to scrape for references saying so; it should be easy, and mentioned in lots of places. There's no need to nitpick sources then, it's just uncontroversially true. However, the more new sources that come out that conspicuously fail to call it a Core Set there are, the harder it is to continue claiming it's a Core Set based off of old sources.

I consider MaRo mentioning "Core" very important! So important that I think that he just denied it was a Core Set! He could have just said "yes" to that question, right? Why would he qualify his statement? If you ask the waiter "Is this meal vegetarian?", and the response is "It's like a vegetarian meal!" .... that means "no, this is not vegetarian". That's obviously an extreme example, but you see my point, I hope? SnowFire (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaRo stated it is a core set with more. It's a core set embellished basically. It still serves as a core set but with more bells and whistles. That's how I interpret it. I don't suddenly throw out the word "core" and somehow think Maro is saying it's anything but a core set but with bells and whistles on. That doesn't make sense. Your vegetarian analogy is disingenuous again. You should have said it like this: Patron - "Is this meal vegetarian?" Waiter - "Yes, but with extra helpings." This would be a direct analogy of MaRo's statement. Not what you offered. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the "it belongs here" camp. It has new cards, yes, but it is still fundamentally a Core Set. p b p 22:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Well, the point is moot now, because Mark Rosewater's article for today is actually a reasonable reference from WotC rather than Tumblr. ( http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/species-origins-part-1-2015-06-22 ) It's still a bit equivocal but it appears that Origins will be associated at least somewhat with the "Core Set" moniker, which the previous WotC reference did *not* offer.

Purplebackpack, a Core Set is whatever WotC says a Core Set is. It's entirely up to them. New cards or no new cards is totally irrelevant (the last 5 Core Sets have had new cards, anyway!), the only thing that matters is what Wizards says.

Leitmotiv, like I said, it's moot now, but the one thing I will clash with you on is "disingenuous." Do you know what that means (wikt:disingenuous)? You are accusing me of lying. I'm not. I don't see MaRo's statement like you did, and it's called a difference of opinion. You can accuse me of being *wrong*, sure, but it has to be blazingly obvious that I'm sincere. What would my motive even be to fool Wikipedia editors about how exactly a company is marketing their product? There really was absolutely nothing coming up for "Origins" and "core set" on Google search for wizards.com as of yesterday aside from the statement that it'd be "like a core set." That is perfectly rational grounds to be skeptical. Disagree if you like, but please assume good faith. SnowFire (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ha... I'm not accusing you of lying, but I am accusing you of misrepresenting the facts as they have been laid out in previously released primary sources. You disagree and state there is nothing definitive, but that is your own folly. Misrepresenting the facts is not a direct lie, it is a "false appearance" which is one of the definitions of disingenuous according to Merriam Webster. You misrepresented MaRo too. Maro said "core set plus" and you failed to understand the meaning of "plus" as being in "addition to" or "more of." Not some warped definition where the meal is suddenly "not vegetarian" (which is a form of subtraction).

Despite that the sources were abundantly clear on it being a core set, you distorted it to your own interpretation and reinterpreted that here in the talk page. I'm okay with misinterpretations, really I am. What I'm not cool with is supplanting this article's references with your own interpretation and not supplying appropriate references to back it up, and then edit warring over it. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't discussing the Magic issue any more, there's nothing to be gained there.

You clearly don't know the usage of the word "disingenuous", but at least it's (less of) a personal attack for your interpretation. For future reference, disingenuous means a knowing use of a "false appearance." e.g. "The con man disingenuously noted that the odds of fair dice rolling his way were only 1/36, without mentioning they were loaded dice." Do not use it for content disputes no matter how sure you are that your interpretation of sources is 100% correct and everyone else is wrong. SnowFire (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core sets back for 2018

Here, it is noted that core sets will be back for 2018. I recommend that Core sets from 2018 and later be in a different article than this one, as they will be appearing after a long layoff, and likely in a different form from the 2009-15 core sets. Thoughts? p b p 23:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely they should go in a new article, yes. That said, the current crop here have pretty sparse entries, so I could possibly see the "new Core Set" failing WP:N on its own, and needing to lurk here for awhile until it got enough third party coverage. SnowFire (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not time to write down the new article? We have already M19 and M20 by now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.49.174.196 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With only M19, M20, and M21 coming out before core sets being discontinued again, I think it would be best for those 3 to just be included in this article rather than a separate article. Accompanied with a article name move to 2009-2020 or 2009-2015, 2018-2020.Yeoutie (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think 2009-2020 is much preferable as a name. The alternative is too clunky. OdinFK (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, and think those sets should be included here. (Despite what my 2017 self said.) The only other prospect would be that if the distinction behind "what is a core set" has gotten so blurry that instead articles be created along the lines of "Magic The Gathering sets, 2020", but unsure if there's an appetite for that. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]