Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Magic: The Gathering sets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic: The Gathering sets

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I created this article over three years ago and am responsible for much of its content, but it has received hundreds of valuable edits from many (I would estimate around 50) other Wikipedia editors as new sets were released. This is probably the most comprehensive single page on the subject that exists on the Internet. It has already been cited by the official Wizards of the Coast Magic: The Gathering website as a comprehensive reference to Magic sets (see http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006). The page is stable; as seen from the talk page, the last content dispute of any length was two-and-a-half years ago, and the content consists of verifiable and cited facts. I recently decided to try to bring the article up to featured status, by adding more citations, adding ALT text to images, etc. You can see the differences from before and afterwards. I believe it now satisfies all the Featured List criteria. —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose pending the following changes:
  • External links in body text. Need to be removed.
Hm. That's it. Otherwise it looks good. Make the fix, and I would change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find one instance of an external link (it was a link to the MTG Gatherer database) within the body text, and I have converted it into a citation reference. If there are any more instances, please let me know. —Lowellian (reply) 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address these objections:
  • "Not all the release dates are sourced."
I originally only sourced the exact release dates (the ones that give an exact date rather than just the month). I have now sourced the inexact month release dates as well. Every single set now has either the prerelease or release date sourced (as discussed in the article, the prerelease is always a Saturday, and the release is always (from 1996 to 2003) two Mondays after the pre-release or (from 2003 onwards) two Fridays after the pre-release.
  • "Same goes for the set counts..."
The set counts are sourced at the top of the table column, rather than for each set individually. Both the official Gatherer database and Crystal Keep give all set counts, the former giving card-by-card details and the latter giving rarity summaries as well as checklists. I have cited both sources. Within the table itself, I give additional citations in special cases (for example, to explain why Alpha has 7 fewer cards than Beta and Unlimited even though the three sets were originally intended to be identical, and to address "secrets" like the ultra-rare in Unhinged).
  • "...and codenames."
All development codenames are now cited.
  • "The images don't have fair use rationales."
The expansion symbols are being used in an educational manner, to explain how to identify cards and their sets. The expansion symbols on this page constitute only a minor part of the product (Magic cards) that Wizards of the Coast is selling, and has no effect on Wizards of the Coast's ability to sell their cards. Also, keep in mind that rather than objecting to this article for its use of expansion symbol images, Wizards of the Coast has directed its official website's readers to this Wikipedia article precisely for its comprehensive explanation of those expansion symbols (see http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006).
  • "The image in the lead will probably not have a possible rationale. There's no reason to show either of those cards."
As the image caption explains, those two cards are being used in an educational manner to show the location of expansion symbols on the cards and as two examples of cards from different sets and of different rarities to show how expansion symbols identify both set and rarity of a card. These two cards are a bare fraction of the sets that Wizards of the Coast is selling. Wizards of the Coast sells boxes, tournament packs, and booster packs, not individual cards as singles. I assert that the low-quality images of these two cards has no effect on the ability of Wizards of the Coast to sell Magic cards.
—Lowellian (reply) 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images still do not have fair use rationales. That's not something you get to decide, all unfree images must have fair use rationales. Please read WP:FUC. Not harming Wizards of the Coast only satisfies FUC#2, there's still the other nine. The lead image definitely fails FUC#8 because you're showing cards without explanation for those cards. I don't need to see a picture to understand that the expansion symbols appear on the right side of the middle of cards. Jay32183 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fair use rationales are there. Going through all the criteria on that page:
  1. There is no free equivalent for either Magic cards or expansion symbols. They are the subjects of the article.
  2. As explained above, they do not replace market role of the copyrighted material.
  3. Very little copyrighted work is being used, the minimum possible. The two cards shown are in a low-resolution image.
  4. The material has indeed been previously published, both in real-life (on and as cards), in books like the Magic Encyclopedia, and on the Internet.
  5. The material is encyclopedic. It serves an educational and informative value within the encyclopedia.
  6. They meet Wikipedia's image use policy.
  7. They are used in at least one article (specifically, this one).
  8. They do contribute significantly to the article. I don't see why you say it fails FUC#8. Explaining that an expansion symbol is on the right side of the card is not the same as a picture showing exactly where it is — and hence it serves an educational and informative value. And the expansion symbols are clearly needed; you can't just say something looks like a globe on a helix, which could be imagined hundreds of different ways...you need to show it for the reader of the encyclopedia.
  9. The images are only being used in the article namespace.
  10. The images are identified as originating from Wizards of the Coast.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand why you say these images don't fall under fair use. —Lowellian (reply) 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There must be a fiar use rationale on the image page of all unfree images. The image in the lead does not make a significant contribution, as there is no critical commentary on those cards or on magic cards in general. That image needs to go. No one really needs to see it, just saying it is educational doesn't make it educational. Not one of the images passes FUC#10. Jay32183 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I look at the image pages the fair use rationales are not there. You can't argue your way around it. The rationale is either there or it is not. I checked and it is not. Jay32183 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now added fair use rationale to the image page of every single image appearing on the page. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "cookie cutter" rationales are insufficient. To satisfy FUC#8 it has to say why "this image is in this article". Simply saying that the image contributes significantly is not enough, you must explain why the image contributes significantly. As for the image in the lead, my objection stands as long as the image is in the article. If it is not removed I will continue to object because it makes zero contribution to the article, since text adequately conveys the same information. Jay32183 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the language more specific. I hope that helps. —Lowellian (reply) 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the image at the top, of the cards. I will quote the caption given on the article in full here:
"Two Magic: The Gathering cards, from different sets. The expansion symbol can be seen on the right side of the cards, below the art and above the text box. The card on the left, Worship, is from Ninth Edition, and the expansion symbol's golden coloration indicates the card is rare. The card on the right, Fireball, is from Darksteel, and the silver coloration of its expansion symbol indicates the card is uncommon."
Now, the caption makes it clear that the image is doing three things of informative value:
  1. the exact location of the set symbol on cards, and its position relative to other elements on cards
  2. through an example, how set symbols of two distinct sets differ, as seen on a card rather than in isolation
  3. through an example, how set symbols of two different rarities differ, as seen on a card rather than in isolation
These pieces of information simply cannot be communicated as effectively via text alone. I specifically chose two cards from different sets and with different rarities for the image precisely in order to get across these points of information. Thus, the image has informative and educational value within the article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can address the first three objections:
  • "No fair use rationales"
    • See above, for fair use rationale.
  • "Improper title"
  • "No spaces before refs, and they need to be after punctuation"
    • I have gotten rid of all spaces I could find before refs, and I have now moved them after punctuation. (Edit: For a few instances, such as for example:
      • 359 cards (110 common, 110 uncommon, 110 rare, 20 basic land, 9 starter[III])
    • I left the reference before the end punctuation because the reference refers to the 9 starter cards specifically, rather than the entire rarity breakdown in parentheses. —Lowellian (reply) 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC) End Edit.)[reply]
—Lowellian (reply) 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it took more work, but I have now addressed the fourth objection as well:
  • "splitting the long content notes separately from the references themselves"
    • I have done this.
—Lowellian (reply) 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not hapy with the title, but I do seem the only one having issues with it. On the otehr hand, your "date" fields in {{cite web}} needs to be properly linked so they don't show up as ISO dates. Do that and I'll support. Circeus 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for (on User talk:Circeus) and am waiting for some clarification on what change needs to be made to address this. —Lowellian (reply) 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • change vote to oppose Re Fair use: NO... the rationale you list here doesn't fix the problems with the image pages. The text you put above is VERY good, but it needs to be on each individual image page. Simply listing it here doesn't do any good. JayG has noted that the rationales are NOT on the image pages. That MUST be fixed. I am cool with the title, since not EVERY list does not need to be boilerplated with the "List of" title, especially since this article has a lot of text, and is a hybrid list/article. Fix the image pages, and I will change my vote back (again!) --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added fair use rationale to the image page of every single image appearing on the page. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would qualify as a non-"excessive" use of fair use images to you? SnowFire 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Renata, this time, I agree with you. Showing the each logo three times? Also, there isn't any text to illustrate. I thought there was an agreement that simplying mentioning something wasn't enough to justify the use of an unfree image. The logos should probably be limited to the set pages, where there is detailed discussion of the set rather than just the set's name and release date. Jay32183 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are three logos for each set, so three logos are shown. When a company releases three different versions of a product, each with a different logo, to reasonably explain the product, all three logos should be shown. To show less then all three logos would render the informational content of the article incomplete. One will not do, for the reason that the three set images illustrate the three different rarities in each set. In some of the sets, especially the more recent ones, there are actually small design differences between the three versions besides coloration. —Lowellian (reply) 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given that the fair usage rationales are placed on each image page (which is an easily fixable matter, and seems to have already been done?). There is no magical threshold above which further fair use images become "bad;" each and every one of those icons is useful as an identifier of cards from the set, and irreplaceable by another image (I can draw my own scimitar, but it won't be the actual logo people use to identify the set which renders it useless). There are a lot of Magic sets, and that's all there is to it. These are not pretty decorative pictures; these are symbols that are the main way people differentiate Magic sets, since the back of each card is the same.
As for the title matter, eh, it's a push. There are vague arguments either way for "List of" vs. no list, and it's not worth the effort. Either title is fine, so the current one wins by default.
The card images on top of the article... are somewhat less vital, I will grant. Still, they provide a useful contrast for the rarity coloration issue, and provide an introduction to the card face for those completely unfamiliar (a good thing, no?). If they're the only thing holding the list back, I'd say to go ahead and remove them, but I think a case can be made there as well, though they are more relevant to the "article" content of the text rather than the list portions. SnowFire 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. For real this time. No take backs. And, for those that complain that there are "too many" Fair Use images on this page, I am not sure that there is any policy that says you can only have X number of fair use images on a page. They are all small, they illustrate the sets in question, and other featured lists, such as: List of South Park episodes. That articles uses Fair Use images with at least the same frequency as this one, and the images serve the same illustrative purpose.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not one of the images in the article contributes significantly, as there is no discussion of anything in the article. Mentioning something is not the same as discussing it. The logos are fine on the set articles, the image in the lead is not suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. Jay32183 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most television episode Featured Lists show a screenshot from every single episode without discussing the screenshot's setting, characters, etc., in the context of that episode. However, the screenshots are allowed because they serve as a visual identifier for each element of the list, that is, each episode. Similarly, in the case of the current nominated article, each set symbol serves as an identifier for each element of the list, that is, each set. Furthermore, the article also discusses how each set symbol identifies the set and how there are three different set symbols for all the more recent sets. It does explain in a short phrase what each set symbol is supposed to represent. —Lowellian (reply) 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retract the objection until all the images are removed, because they all fail FUC#8. By the way, there are not three logos for each set, there is one logo in three different colors. Jay32183 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "discussion of anything?" Could you be more specific as to what kind of discussion still germane to a featured list rather than article would make these images fair use? I'm unclear as to why they'd be fair use on the set page, but not the list page (which is the entryway to the set page), and the images act as identification.
Perhaps some analogical reasoning might help. Suppose that there was an IUPAC-specified logo for each element in the periodic table, and furthermore that these logos were used extremely often for identification (on every single container of sodium would be sodium's logo, and the letter equivalent Na would be used only rarely). Would it be appropriate to identify each element with its logo on a fair-use periodic chart? SnowFire 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be appropriate to put the logos on the periodic table, and this example is actually worse than the actual list we're dealing with. Using the symbol Na is completely free and therefore the logo would fail the fair use criteria in any article not specifically discussing the logo. The logo for Ravnica can be used in the Ravnica article, the logo for sodium could not be used in the sodium article because there is a completely free way to do it without losing any information. You can't show an unfree image just because something is mentioned, it has to be discussed. Jay32183 01:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we have a bit of a disagreement on criteria 8. To quote:
The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
The standard is significance, and a direct example used was "identify the subject of an article." These images meet that standard by being a clear improvement to the article, and not decorative presentation-improvers.
As for the periodic table example, the letter versions would not "adequately give the same information," since in this hypothetical example most people are familiar with the image logos and few know the letter equivalents. I was focusing more on FUC #8 with the example; didn't mean to confuse the issue with #1.
I will also again repeat my request before: what kind of discussion would make these images fair-use in your view? If you have something in mind, then it can be probably added to the list. SnowFire 01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These images to not identify the subject of the article. The Ravnica logo would idnetify the subject of the Ravnica article, but not this list. There isn't any text to illustrate. The way the logos are used isn't the same as most of the episode lists. If you compare it to an episode list then it is one with images but without plot summaries. There has been pretty universal agreement that that is not allowed. I believe there has been a debate about sports logos in the past with the outcome that the logos couldn't be used just because the team was mentioned. The same rule should apply here. Jay32183 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The multiple expansion symbols are not excessive, if this article stood alone. However, if you take a look at some of the individual set pages, you'll see that they only show the common (black) expansion symbol. But each set's individual entry should have more information that the page listing all the sets, not less. Therefore, I suggest taking one of the following actions:
a) Swap with the individual entries. That is, put the three in each set's page, leaving the common version on the list.
b) Move the symbols. That is, put all three in each set's page, removing them completely from this one.
c) Copy what the individual pages do; just leave the common version here (and remove the description).
d) Remove all the symbols (and their descriptions) on this page.
I would personally recommend c, to be consistent with the individual entries. But even with that accomplished, I would still be hesitant to support this, as the majority of the article reads like a list right now. And again, the important details of each set should go in that set's page. The tables are nice for comparison, but it really is information overload right now. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got confused between featured list and featured article, sorry. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I find this to be one of the best suggestions so far. It makes sense that each individual set page has a stronger fair use rationale for including all three. Only a couple demonstrative side-by-sides need to be shown. Perhaps just use the Time Spiral symbols to illustrate all four varieties, and only include commons for each of the other sets. Cool Hand Luke 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Magic:_The_Gathering_sets&oldid=197343307"