Talk:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Valiant (comics)#Armada and Windjammer divisions|Armada]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym arabian.gif

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (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) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arabian Nights (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/20130129093406/http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/229 to http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/229

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995. 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:

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) 13:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995. 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:

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) 14:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of Magic sets

@SnowFire: @Paragon Deku: Okay we can leave in the attribution SnowFire, however, with a citation in place, we know it's not a "random blogpost" as you suggest it could be mistaken for. If it could be mistaken for a blogpost, it could be mistaken for just about anything which isn't a useful argument, especially considering that blogs are not suitable sources for Wikipedia. We could attribute more sources to this commonly held belief, but that would be redundant, when one would suffice. Essentially we could go and gather a bunch of sources citing it as the worst set, and then pare it back down to 1, because that many sources is excessive. In other words, it is an unnecessary middle step. We already know a leading authority in LSV thinks it's the worse set, it's almost a foregone conclusion (as a Magic player myself) that the majority of players also concur. Essentially, we as editors need to agree and recognize that it is the worst set and stop splitting hairs. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying reception & criticism shouldn't be included. I'm saying that Wikipedia writing style is to attribute opinions without needing to check the reference. See Jaws (film)#Critical reception for a featured article example. If you've found more harsh statements on Homelands from notable commentators, feel free to add them, just attribute them, because if you don't it reads as if it's just some Wikipedia editor's opinion - forcing the attribution puts that in the spotlight so it's obvious when that's actually the case ("According to xxJace420xx, Homelands and Ravnica are actually the same set"). SnowFire (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I wasn't trying to start a conflict over what I think is ultimately a dumb fanbase opinion (for the record I also am a magic player), but you absolutely need to attribute these types of claims because they're matters of opinion. You can't assume anyone glancing over an article will care to nor want to check the source to see who's saying what. It would be odd to just drop a sentence like "people think this is the worst set" without explaining who has consolidated this opinion, even if we can anecdotally both agree it's a common one. In addition, "we as editors" don't need to agree on the subjective quality of anything. Even though I would agree it is one of the worst (if not the) worst set, our job is not to acknowledge the subjective quality of page topics. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I stand corrected on attribution. Opinions on these types of things are kind of dumb, but in a section on reception, it probably bears mentioning since other readers may be interested in knowing the consensus worst set. As for editors agreeing on subjective quality, I originally agreed with your thinking. I always thought it wasn't allowed on Wikipedia, but I've been a part of a few conversations and have stumbled across more that shows Wikipedia content is shaped by agreement between editors on subjective content. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely learn from peeking behind the curtain how much editors just all agreeing on a topic can really change an article (for better or for worse) but I'm glad we were able to resolve this quickly without it getting ugly. You both seem like rational people and I'm glad we came to an agreement on something trivial without making it go nuts. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 6#Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect Serra (Magic: The Gathering) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Serra (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]