Talk:Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering)

Problems

I think that it should be mentioned that the set is non tornament legal except the lands (the same as unglued)

The link to super seactret tech needs removing or redirecting as wizards dont hold ant data about it on there site (and when questioned refuse to acknologedg its existance)

Gleemax

The following section was originally Talk:Gleemax; redirected following a deletion debate. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that 'sales' and 'marketing' have been mentioned more than once. As an actve participant in this ARG/ promotion/ experiment/ whatever, not once has anyone or anything attempted to sell me anything. As of this time, very little is known about the purposes and intentions. To echo the sentiments of others, if ilovebees (and to a smaller extent Perplex City) merited inclusion, I support the inclusion of Gleemax as a standalone entry. --~sinne diablo, nullus dominus. 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been created by Wizard of the Coast. It's sales promotion, have we to delete it ?

Gleemax is a fairly noteworthy concept (at least among the segment of people that play Magic: The Gathering), so without demonstratable proof that this was authored by Wizards and is a sales promotion, I vote to retain the page. Energythief 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teeuwynn Woodruff works at Wizards, and the person who made this page has the username Teeuwynn. I don't think it's a coincidence. But, I also think we should keep this article up. I will just re-create it anyway if it is taken down. Forgotten hope 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to explain a few things. First, keeping a page is not a vote. Numbers are not the question, but rather the soundness of one's argument for retention of a page, based upon either existing policies and practices, or simple good sense. In this case, as an individual Magic card, it's unlikely that the card itself will rate a full article. The best place for this information is likely the Unhinged page, though I can see some places for it elsewhere. Second, saying that you will re-create a page after it's deleted could be interpreted as intending to disrupt Wikipedia. Thus I suggest not doing so. Most likely, it'll just lead to a speedy-deletion tag, and a warning on your user page.

Finally, it's a valid Conflict of interest concern for any Wizards's employee to edit WOTC related pages on Wikipedia. It's not forbidden, and in this case, it's not likely to be a sales promotion (the set was released years ago), so I don't think it's a problem, but it is something worth addressing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gleemax is indeed a Magic card. It appears in the Un-hinged set (a sequel to the "joke" set Un-glued; both are official Wizards of the Coast product). It has the distinction of having the highest mana cost of any Magic card: 1,000,000 mana!198.178.147.1 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which might means it merits coverage on the page for the set it is in, however, that doesn't equate to its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this entry is indeed a by-product of a viral campaign. However, the information in it has been known for some time and the fictional charcter "Gleemax" is of some importance to the Magic the Gathering community. I vote for leaving it since it is of some cultural significance, as long as the entry doesn't move away from known information. ~riddle198.178.147.1 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD is not a vote, but in any case, your statement should be made there. I suggest if you are arguing for its cultural significance, you provide evidence of said significance. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the part about the brains. That is part of some kinda viral thingy. 24.47.28.203 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some kind of publisity exersise that is currently in operation where Wizards of the coast are sending people rubber brains with the legend MOCTODSDRZIWTAXAMEELG which is a email address backwards (gleemax@wizards.com) that leads to the website address http://www.gleemax.com which is redirected to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=gleemax. What purpose all this is intended to serve, an in house company joke or an invitation to an exclusive community board I don't know. Finally, the intent seems just to be humorous and really doesn't merit an inclusion on wikipedia, as it dilutes the serious nature of the encyclopedia. At the most it should be a stub, or a subheading on an article to do with Magic the Gathering. It seems an original or poster created article, as really the article does not cite any primary printed sorces. E-mails on message boards don't really count. It's intresting, but really should be confined to it's source the Wizards of the coast own website and shouldn't populate wikipedia. Frrostie 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's humorous or not isn't relevant. There are many jokes on Wikipedia, such as Yale's "We Suck" Prank or the Great Rose Bowl Hoax, and even Taco Liberty Bell. The question is, whether it's been noticed by people and commented upon. Which I concur, hasn't been demonstrated. FrozenPurpleCube 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with your reasoning. At the moment, the whole Gleemax.com thing appears to be turning into a sort of Alternate Reality Game that's simply in its initial stages. And just because the intent is humorous does not mean that its mention doesn't belong here. Encyclopedia's are meant to be informative, not dull. You can still talk about a humorous subject in a serious way (as is done with Munchkin, for example). I think it would be a waste if this were to be deleted now, only to be considered a "worthy" topic later. I think we should simply hold off on any deletion until this ARG pans out a little more. ADSchnorr 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I suggest a merge/redirect to Unhinged which will keep the edit history without deletion, so if there's a change in circumstances, the material here can be kept as a base. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you may wish to make your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleemax as that is the place where most of the discussion is located. The closing admin may not read this at all. FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is accurate and I found it useful. The article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.132.73 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's unlikely to persuade anyone, as the question is lack of sources, not usefulness or accuracy. FrozenPurpleCube 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Gleemax wikisite

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly, but I need to understand a few things. While there is a promotion for Gleemax going on, and there is an alternate reality project (largely unspurred by the marketing), the main goal of the site is to provide information. So far we have been directed to do a scavenger hunt, complete a quiz (ironically based off wiki definitions) and decode a message with base64 that pointed us to a Youtube video called operation poppycock (which appears to be a prankster messing around in the Wizards offices) My concern is that *other* clues were left in the wiki that have since been deleted. Just randomly, I took a screenshot of the old wiki, but I don't have all the links provided at the bottom.

1) What date was the gleemax wiki up? If it was after may 24th, 2007, there is a good chance this IS part of our scavenger hunt as well.

2) Can we (the people following this) get a copy of the original page as it was set up?

3) Why was Gleemax deleted when you have wiki's on Ilovebees, for example, which is exactly the same sort of promotion, and the same sorts of references?

Sincerely, Xavier Rodriguez (somnovore@gmail.com)

Hello Xavier,

The page was created on May 18th. I doubt any clues have been deleted. If they were, then I regret the disruption to your scavenger hunt, but those who left clues here had no reason to expect they would remain intact - as we say, if they didn't want their writing to be edited mercilessly by others, they came to the wrong place.

You can, as it happens, access the last version here for now: the page was not totally deleted, although some were of the opinion it should have been. You may be interested in this discussion.

I Love Bees was brought up once or twice, and others have given various answers in previous discussion. A couple of Magic-related articles were also brought up with the "you have this, so why would you delete Gleemax" argument, and, as it turns out, those articles have since been deleted as well. Wikipedia is not always instantaneously consistent. And so perhaps some of the content of the I Love Bees article is unsuitable as well; I hadn't looked too closely at it. However, it sort of looks like I Love Bees had been covered in Wired among other places, people had received awards because of it, and there were generally things to be said about it. There wasn't a whole lot to be said about Gleemax - it was an inside joke, now it has a card. It seems to be adequately covered in a few sentences here.

I hope this answers your questions. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this issue should be revisted; there's plenty of information out there now on what WotC intend for the site. Take this article for instance. They've also said that online versions of Dragon and Dungeon magazines will be part of gleemax. --Starwed 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]