Talk:Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering)

Note that although the full title of the set is Ravnica: City of Guilds, the title of the article is simply Ravnica. This is in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which favor common usage when determining how to title an article, and writing out the full name in the article's body (see Frankenstein or Moll Flanders for an example). Note that in his article introducing the official Ravnica previews, the set's own lead designer, Mark Rosewater, does not once use the "City of Guilds" portion of the title and simply calls it "Ravnica" throughout, even though the article is essentially official Wizards of the Coast promotion for the set. Please respect the Wikipedia convention. Andrew Levine 00:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Do we have the right to use the official desriptions of the guilds? The current test is copied from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/guildpact/gruul and similar pages. --Apoc2400 08:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extraneous text from the Gruul description (which referred to images on the original page). The text is actually that which is included with the theme decks; there shouldn't be anything wrong with transcribing a freely-available blurb. --Tikitikirevenge 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the guild descriptions seem to have been taken from the Player's Guides from the fat packs for each of the sets, which is copyrighted material. 68.231.159.127 11:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Is it really necessary to have a "WARNING, STORYLINE SPOILERS" note before every plot spoiler if there's one at the top already?

Recentish large additions.

Unless references are provided for them I'll have no choice but to remove them. I've no objection to them, but verification is a must. Jefffire 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I've made an atempt to collect all the information together under the guild titles and cut out things which can't be validated. It still looks a little messy so I'd appreciate some help. Jefffire 14:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this: Rewording needed

We need to reword the guild entries so they look less like a cut and paste job from Mark Rosewater's articles. Any takers? Jefffire 11:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it. Sometime. Scumbag 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My plans for the article

I have a few plans for this article, one I've already done:

Remove the "Play Style" sections from some of the guilds; eventually use the "Values and Gameplay" thing instead. There's no real competitive deck based soley on the guilds, so I don't think its relevent. The later, on the other hand, works as both a thematic and informative basis.

Rewrite the copied-from-Wizards guild comments.

This is off the top of my head - it's late, and I'm tired. Discuss. Scumbag 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right, scumbag. I did a huge rewrite a few months earlier, but I regret to say I've been a bit lazy latley. Play style is entirely OR, and was incorrect in places. I'll have a go at rewriting the guild descriptions before Rosewater has our legs broke. Jefffire 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parun

Do we know who the Simic Parun is? It's the only guild without one listed, or mentioned. --Sakaki22 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wait, what is Ravnica?

Could someone add what exactly is Ravinca in the real word, i.e. where the story originated, and what exactly it has to do with Magic: the Gathering stuff, how exactly does Ravinca come into play? what exactly is this term used for within Magic?

If all this is already in the article, then its pretty hard to understand and should be cleared up. as a complete noob, this makes no sense to me, and doesn't help me understand anything. remember, the world of Magic is pretty deep and extensive... what a lot of experienced hoobyists/players take for granted is still a learning process for others. Knowsitallnot 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for sounding rude, but what part of 'In the card game Magic: The Gathering, Ravnica is a plane whose primary planet is covered by cities. Ravnica is the setting for Ravnica: City of Guilds, Guildpact, and Dissension' did you not understand? It's clear that Ravnica is the setting for one of the later Magic: The Gathering sets. Scumbag 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules?

This is about a card game. I would appreciate to find at least short rules for the game here. This is merely a description of the world of RAV.

Exactly. "This is merely a description of the world of RAV." Try Magic: The Gathering or look in rules at [1]. Also it would be best if you talked to someone- they are pretty complicated and based on flavor. Deadbraincell 03:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

It would be great to add in some illistrations of the land, etc. That way people can actually have a clue as to what it looks like, or what it is intended to look like. By showing the little sigils of the guilds and pictures of a couple cards doesn't at all help to orient you in the world of Ravnica. 70.48.161.4 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravnica has more pics than any other, but yeah, basic lands would be helpful. and not just here.Deadbraincell 23:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would we get pictures of any MTG stuff without violating copyright? Is WotC good?Supernerd11 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Supernerd11[reply]

Redirecting to Ravnica: City of Guilds

This article is an excellent example of how not to write an article on a fan special-interest subject on Wikipedia.

It completely fails WP:WAF. It makes no reference to the real world (except for game-guide material, of course) after the first sentence. Instead, it describes the fictional world as though it were real, describing story and setting as history instead of plot summary.

None of the claims in this article are attributed. It doesn't even do a very good job of explaining where any of this came from. (I know it's from the Ravnica-block card flavor text, the fatpack guides, and the novels, but those are all primary sources.)

There's no evidence of notability. This is tied up in the above; there are no non-trivial references in independent, reliable sources for any of this.

This is not how articles should be written on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me, you take it out on me. You're just being petty. Scumbag 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when someone declares open contempt for Wikipedia's rules about writing about fiction and sourcing and original research, I go looking for problematic articles in that user's history. I don't have any problem with you, but I do have a problem with poorly-sourced, in-universe articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MiB, WP:WAF does not mean you should blank this page; it means you should fix it. Personally, I'd like to see such material on Ravnica (plane), since Ravnica should redirect to the set of that name. People typing "Ravnica" expect to find the card set, not backstory. --Khaim 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it with what? It was all explicit detail sourced to vague handwaves about what the article was about. There might be a place for a new article written from the ground up, based on attributed sources, but I don't see how what we had was going to form the foundation for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop editwarring. You are the only one here who thinks that this content is inappropriate. This article is about major concept in Magic's storyline, and has huge impact on gameplay. This plane is detailedly described in several novels that go with the game. This is far more notable than some random Pokemon. Several editors, who actually play the game (and thus, are experts on the topic) disagree with your accessment of this article, yet you continue to ignore them. Please, start improving Wikipedia, instead of deleting what's already there. Grue 12:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the impact on the real world? What's with all the game rule text? Where are the attributions to reliable sources indepedent of the subject? In fact, where are the attributions to any published sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "not there yet". There is no question about existance of published sources (the Magic novels , and a lot of Magic-related sites). The rest is the task for Cleanup. Grue 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of those things is a reliable source independent of the subject? We're not here to parrot WOTC's promotional material, or parrot published novels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject in question is a plane in Magic multiverse. Everything in the real world is independent of it, really. And yes, we do indeed parrot published novels in many articles across Wikipedia. See Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (or even Diagon Alley) for example, these contain no information beyond plot summaries and cite no sources beyond Rowling's books. Grue 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The works in which the subject is depicted are not independent of the subject. They are the subject. Other articles which are equally poorly written are no excuse for this article to be poorly written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The works in which the subject is depicted are not independent of the subject." So, basically, if I understand you right, works that are independent of the subject don't mention the subject at all? Now, that is a very strange definition. And I don't think those other articles are poorly written. They do a good job of describing their subject, using only primary sources. So do thousands of other articles on Wikipedia, such as individual pokemon articles. And, I think it's obvious that the whole world in MTG is more notable than each individual Pokemon. So, as Template:Guideline, found on WP:N says, treat it with common sense. Grue 09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand me correctly. If a work depicts a fictional thing, the fictional thing is a part of that work. To give you an example, the Lord of the Rings novels are not a source of information about Middle Earth; instead, Middle Earth is a part of the Lord of the Rings novels. Fans have a tendency to confuse stories with information, so there are naturally going to be lots of articles in need of this sort of cleanup. Please stop wasting time linking other articles in need of the same cleanup as this article; there's no sense stopping the janitor from mopping one part of the floor just because the rest of the floor is still messy.

If you're looking to make a case that all of these guidelines don't apply, you need to make a case that this is some sort of exception, because this is currently exactly the sort of thing that WP:WAF was made to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this article may need cleanup. What I disagree with is that it needs to be deleted (or redirected, which is the same thing to the reader). And about guidelines, I'm making the case that they are not "generally accepted among editors", since so many articles ignore these guidelines. Grue 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those editors are merely ignorant of the preferred style on Wikipedia, and writing in a typical fannish style. The prevalence of typos and factual errors on Wikipedia does not mean that typos and factual errors are de facto endorsed, does it?

Now, I redirected this article because it contained the in-universe info an article on the block would, while containing pretty much no useful out-of-universe info. If we're going to have an article on the block, distilling Ravnica (plane) down for the info on the setting might not be a bad idea. If we're not, each of the Ravnica set articles already has everything useful in Ravnica (plane) (and if they don't, the info needs to be merged into the set articles, because this has no possible claim of notability separate from the works themselves). We don't, in any event, need a separate article on the setting due to the lack of useful references and the lack of a need for a spinoff article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be one ofthe worst articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be written as if it were in the third person. However this sounds more like a blog than an dictionary or encyclopedia. Anyone second me on this?Kou Nurasaka 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym RAV R.gif

Image:Exp sym RAV R.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym RAV U.gif

Image:Exp sym RAV U.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym RAV R.gif

Image:Exp sym RAV R.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym RAV U.gif

Image:Exp sym RAV U.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Selesnya Guildmage.jpg

Image:Selesnya Guildmage.jpg 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) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novel

Whoa. In the 3rd paragraph there, the last couple lines. I haven't read the book, but I have a hard time believing that's in there. McFlynnTHM (talk) 20:17, 8 July 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) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Define 'block'?

The article begins "Ravnica is a Magic: The Gathering block" (bold is mine). Is it clear to readers what a block is? Do we need to define this? RJFJR (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..... How can we define a block seems really struggling. Simply saying that is some sets related can't be enough............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lever112 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guilds of Ravnica block

Guilds of Ravnica block is the actually unofficial name of a series of three magic the gathering sets on Ravnica: Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance and an unnamed set. These are most recent sets that is related to Ravnica. Since I don't know how to build an totally new page. Can some one deal with that? Lever112 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance, and the upcoming War of the Spark sets, while all taking place on the same plane, are not being released as one 'block'. That term has a particular meaning in Magic: the Gathering, and it does not apply to any expansion sets released after Rivals of Ixalan, as the 'block structure' ended with the Ixalan block. Dominaria, Core Set 2019, and these Ravnica sets are all independent expansions. 2600:6C56:6800:1F4:0:51C7:A59E:5DE6 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]