Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article on Proxy cards

Hi folks, I wrote a lot on the article on proxy cards (being a small stub before). I think this article would benefit from a review by a second person, as my practical experience with this subject is rather limited (never been to a tournament, never seen others play with proxies). The article is not mtg-specific, and I think a cross-game article is sufficient for this subject. However, there is a strong mtg-relevance. I hope this is a good place for this recruiting request? At least I imagine some experts around here ;) --Lhead 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering sets

Just letting people know that I have nominated Magic: The Gathering sets as a Wikipedia:Featured list candidate; see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Magic: The Gathering sets. —Lowellian (reply) 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some users have raised objections to the images used on the Magic: The Gathering sets page. I don't believe those objections are valid; if the objections are valid, then I think they would also apply to the images used on the Magic: The Gathering article and render them unusable...could editors of Magic: The Gathering articles familiar with image use policy contribute to the discussion about image status on the nomination page? —Lowellian (reply) 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe on Magic: The Gathering's discussion page, there was talk of permission from Wizards of the Coast to display their card images. You might want to look at the archives there, or just write Wizards yourself to get permission. I doubt they'd be hostile to the idea. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept permission only images. Either the image is free or it isn't. If the image is not free it must conform to WP:FUC. Jay32183 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Easily solved if one asks wizards to license the content in an acceptable way to Wikipedia. Doesn't hurt to ask, the worst they can do is say no and request the images be removed. If not, then, make a fair use rationale, but I'd still check the main Magic page's discussion since I'm pretty sure this subject has come up before. FrozenPurpleCube 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizards will not be releasing their images for free, they still make money off of them. Not every unfree image will have a valid fair use rationale. Jay32183 05:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they make money off the card sales, I doubt they make any money whatsoever off selling images for cards, let alone set icons. But hey, if there's no valid fair use rationale, remove the images, replace with a description of them. If you're really concerned, try listing the images on Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead. More knowledgeable heads there, I hope. FrozenPurpleCube 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2¢... or so...

First, what ppi and width are the images being uploaded at? If the numbers all small enough (ie 72 ppi at a width of 1/2 to 2/3 the actual card) the image ceases to be something that could be used to compete w/ WotC/Hasbro.

Second, the instruction and flavor texts should be blanked. Same reasoning.

Third, is a full card needed to illustrate the point? To show relative positioning all that is really needed is the section from the edge of the card in to just past the symbol, and down from the top until just below it. The rarity issue is best illustrated by just a single set of black, silver, and gold from one expansion, sort of like what is in the table lower down.

- J Greb 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning only satisfies FUC#2. FUC#8 is going to be a big problem. The fair use rationale must specify why it is necessary to use the unfree image in the article. Based on your last point, the cards shown in the lead definitely do not qualify for WP:FUC because they could be replaced by a blank card frame, with a fake logo in the appropriate colors. That image would be completely free and fulfill the same purpose. Jay32183 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure that a "fake card" would be less of a problem, since it could be construed as infringing on Wizard's magic trademarks and copyrights even more so than an image of a real card. (though MTGsalvation does do it, I don't know that Wikipedia should when talking about actual cards). I really think the best way to proceed would be to see if it's possible to get permission from Wizards/Hasbro in some way. Yes, that permission would have to be a free license, but they did release the d20 SRD under the OGL after all, so it's not like there is zero hope. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst that happens? They say no, demand the removal, replace with descriptions. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while I can see the possibly limitation of the C/U/R to fewer images, things like timeshifted cards are another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt they would give any useful image away under a free license. Free means completely free, so if a site wanted to use the free frame to degrading ends, they'd be without recourse. If artwork's involved, they'd similarly be deeding over valuable rights. No, they would be insane to grant a whole card image.

I think it's a great article, but if it leans too heavily of fair use, it will not be featured. And as has been pointed out, the lead image doesn't even seem to qualify for fair use. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if somebody used an image for degrading ends, Wizards would have the typical responses of slander/libel/defamation to use regardless of the license. Wikipedia itself has a policy against such abuses. Thus I'm not convinced that that is truly a valid concern. And I am not even saying they'd grant a whole card image. But they might ok the expansion symbols and a card without art being used. Or they might not. Nobody knows till they at least ask. FrozenPurpleCube 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But, a free license means that wikipedia policy alone does not apply. Anybody can use the image to whatever ends they desire, and in the absence of an unfair some sort competition suit (which would not apply without competing sales), Wizards could literally do nothing about it. They've shown a desire to protect their intellectual property, so giving unlimited rights to use a card frame is not something any rational actor would want to do. Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A "free" license is not a license to do anything. I could take any number of pages off wikipedia and fill them with libel and slander, but not violate any other policies like the WP:GFDL. I could still be held accountable for that action, if I were to violate applicable laws.

How does this apply to the current situation? I don't know for sure. But it is conceivable to me that there may be an acceptable license for both Wikipedia use and Wizards. There may not. They may be more paranoid about these images than the rules for D&D. However, I think WP:Logo *might* cover the issue of these possibly trademarked and copyrighted images. Also, I note that this featured article does have licensed images in it. Lots of them. So maybe it's not an insurmountable obstacle after all. FrozenPurpleCube 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But you could take wikipedia pages, republish them for profit, or alter them to include pornographic or political images. I doubt Wizards wants to forfeit their recognizable graphic property this way, but acceptable free licenses would require them to. Point of fact, Wizards has enjoined software makers from using scanned card frames in the past, something they would not be able to do for any frames they licensed freely. Anything short of a free license must be justified by fair use, and having three copies of each expansion symbol and the card samples are problematic. Cool Hand Luke 10:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the former case, they might have an argument for slander/obscenity. In the latter, I suspect license or no license, they'd have zero recourse anyway, given the wide leeway given towards political speech. Besides, I noticed MTGsalvation.com is still doing their self-made cards. If that was indeed a problem, how come they're doing it? It's not like Salvation hasn't had a legal run-in with Wizards. Beyond that, as I noted, there is a featured article with limited licensed images, and I would say the fair use claims are only opinions, not hard and fast concerns. I think having the images of a whole card as well as all of the set icons is an important part of commentary and criticism that is a valid fair use, other people don't. Resolution? I don't know, I could live with use one icon per set and one illustrative section for rarities, so it doesn't bother me if that change is made. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WotC will never ever ever ever license their cards under the GDFL, for reasons stated above. That would imply giving up control of them and allowing them to be used in competing products, for illustrating "Magic sucks!" works, and so on. As for MTGSalvation and make-your-own-card uses, well, number 1 it's likely fair use (parody), and number 2, even in the cases it isn't, WotC is more than happy to have this tacit advertising for them. Heck, in a sense due to the messed-up world of copyright law, it could be argued that stores like SCG shouldn't have images of the cards they're selling, since that image could adequately be replaced by just the card name (this is the argument I believe Jay32183 to be making at the page?). I doubt that such a claim should it go to court would win, but it wouldn't be thrown out prima facia. It would be idiotic for Wizards to sue over this free advertising, however. Wizards would only complain if their art / cardframes were used in a way that was both seriously damaging to Magic's image and if winning a suit would actually mean a darn thing. For instance, random flamer on the Internet using Magic art to say Magic sucks? Suing them won't do anything and will only bring attention to them. If Inquest decides to go rogue and slam Magic using their own copyrighted material, though? Or if Newsweek wants to use Magic art for some reason? Those both have money in the bank account, so there's a point in suing them and deterring future infringement (or at least guaranteeing in the Newsweek case that they pay WotC for the privilege). I believe WotC did something similar to clamp down on people selling proxy cards over eBay, for example. The fact that they only need to use the legal weapon rarely only implies that it's serving as an effective deterrent.

The "by permission" argument is probably better. In fact, Wikipedia used to cheerfully accept copyrighted material by permission. Unfortunately, the free software zealots noticed this and agitated a change in Wikipedia policy to not allow this any more, because copyright = evil or something. The "high" reason is that theoretically someone could yank their "by permission" quietly, then make a big fuss to the media that Wikipedia was stealing their copyrighted works. There's also the fact that a Wikipedia-only permission wouldn't apply to mirrors, and would make copyright-compliant mirrors look funny without the image. Of course, I'd just say to standardize a procedure for permission granting & revocation myself, and say that mirrors keeping track of permission issues is their own darn problem. Sadly, this argument has been closed for awhile now, so I wouldn't get your hopes up on changing this, especially when you consider that the zealots would actually prefer all free use material gone completely (despite the fact that the law clearly allows it). (Also, disclaimer: I'm on the "open-source" side of the nerd divide here; open-source may be a _better_ way to do things in many cases, but that doesn't imply that closed-source is bad and must be destroyed, like Richard Stallman, etc. would say)

As for the actual MTG Sets article, I'll only say that I think the logos are valid fair-use, and have said why in the FL discussion. SnowFire 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is all correct. They might be willing to give site-specific permission, and they might even be willing to license under something like CC-by-nc-nd (which bars commercial use and derivative works), but these licenses are unfortunately disfavored under Wikipedia policy. Any of these images must be deemed fair use. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is near closure. Currently four votes (if mine, as the nominator, is counted, that would make five) supporting the list. Two votes oppose on the basis of image use. —Lowellian (reply) 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on Kenji

This article was recently published. It can probably be used to improve Kenji Tsumura. Jay32183 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro Tour Qualifier

It has been suggested that the article Pro Tour Qualifier, one I did not create but cleaned up extensively, be merged with Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering). There's no discussion at either page for it, so I figured I might as well start one here, with my own opinion:

Support: I believe the PTQ article is extremely small. I think it'll be good for a section of the PT article, but standing on its own is rather silly. I can't believe I didn't think of it. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur as there's probably enough content to cover the concept of a qualifier, but not enough to branch out on its own. That may change one day, and it can be added at that point. Besides, the best way to explain a PTQ is in the context of a PT anyway. I am not sure, however, that PTQ should redirect to the MTG page. Are there any other sports/games which use the term? If so, it might be best to make PTQ a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found any, but I made Pro Tour a dab page a while back. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Update: Just Googled "Pro Tour Qualifier". The first 18 results were all for the MtG PTQ, the 19th was about ITTF PTQs. Don't know about any others, though. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We could first move Pro Tour Qualifier to Pro Tour Qualifier (Magic: The Gathering) so that the general term is freed up to be redirected anywhere, but the history of the article is still preserved somewhere. Jay32183 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving it works for me. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support: The article doesn't have enough information in it for a stand-alone. I would suggest a dab, though, so that, in case anyone wants to make an article for the ITTF PTQs, there will still be a hard link to the PTQ section of the Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) article.--Lifebaka 02:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested criteria for notable cards

I think we need objective (or at least semi-objective) criteria for a card being notable. I suggest the following:

Spike criterion The card had an extremely successful tournament deck built around it (Donate), or is/was effeicient and powerful enough to be a staple in most decks of its colour(s) (Lightning Helix, Remand).
Johnny criterion The card does something truly unique, somthing that had never been done before it. Examples: Golgari Brownscale, Spellweaver Volute.
Timmy criterion The card is a superlative in some way, like most expensive non-Un card (Autochthon Wurm), or largest non-Un creature (Dark Depths).
The card had an entire mtg.com article dedicated to it (Skullclamp). Preview articles and Single-Card Strategies articles should be specifically excluded.
The card has an interesting and truly unique story associated with it (Timbermare).
The card is seen as iconic (Serra Angel, Shivan Dragon).

I suggest that any card satisfying 3 or more of these criteria is definitely notable, and any card satisfying 2 can be considered. Obviously, this could use some tweaking, but I feel it would be better than our current (largely non-existent) criteria. --Ashenai 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding "The card, or its art was used in a promotional fashion directly with the set, or several sets" and in some cases, the character of the card might be relevant if they were used in the storyline of the set, such as Bosh, or Lord Konda. FrozenPurpleCube 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the fourth category could go with several other categories. Most cards featured in such articles are iconic, interesting, or broke a format enough to be banned. And note the Johnny criterion makes for quite a lot of notable cards in Future Sight. But I like the suggestions. If we trim it down to just three, such as "Spike" (historically powerful), "Johnny" (interesting), and "Timmy" (iconic), with only one necessary, I think that would be better. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We should have a source to confirm the "historically powerful", "interesting", or "iconic" claim so that it does not come off as original research. Simply sourcing that the card exists and claiming it falls into one of those categories would be OR. Jay32183 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant on trying to use sources for notable cards. I can see how to source the "historically powerful", but the others may be a little more difficult. We would probably also lose a lot of legitimately notable cards simply because we can't source them. And, well, these are categories for us to determine which cards to use, not necessarily categories to put the cards under, though we'd be explaining how the card fits in. (I guess you mean source the explanation next to the card?) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We as Wikipeidans aren't supposed to be making judgment calls, we can only reflect the judgments from reliable sources. It would not be the card itself that needs sourcing, but the explanation for why the card is notable. Jay32183 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes more sense. Thanks. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious, verifiable truths don't have to be sourced. For example, Dark Depths' notability is that it produces the largest non-Un creature in Magic. I can find a source for this, but even if I couldn't, anyone with a little free time can input some searches in Gatherer and verify this. Similarly, Spellweaver Volute is the first Aura that can enchant a card in an out-of-play zone: this is also verifiable, and thus doesn't necessarily need to be sourced.

I tried to make as many of my criteria independently verifiable as possible: I was hoping that this might mitigate the need to source every single card mentioned in a set article. --Ashenai 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a card that fits just one category should be notable: for example, every set has at least 5-10 cards that fit just the Johnny requirement (yes Future Sight has more like 40). I included the fourth requirement because a card having its own article pretty much guaantees that it's notable, and better yet, it can easily be shown to be objectively notable, by linking to the article. --Ashenai 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Artists on set articles?

Should we add a section to the Magic set articles about the artists contracted in each set? I'm not suggesting anything more than a list of artists, possibly with links to their respective websites (assuming they have them). Is this addition something this Wikiproject would be in favor of? --Lifebaka 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to listing the artists, but links to their sites would be a bit much. Just give the artists a wiki-link to their article, since most of them probably qualify for one anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. If you're just listing the artists that appear in the set, it'll be way too many. But, not all artists are actually contracted. But even if you can find a source telling you which ones are, I still don't think this is an essential part of the set articles. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, just a suggestion. Soon as I thought about it I decided it wasn't a great idea myself, anyways. Still, noting any famous artists who worked on a set in the set article might be worthwhile, assuming the artist already has a Wikipedia article.

As for the sources, I'm pretty sure Taste the Magic would have 'em going back as far as its archive goes. Beyond that, there might be something on the product pages for the older sets. Or I could always reference Gatherer searches, if it comes to it... --Lifebaka 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Magic Novels?

What should be done with Magic novels, especially ones with the same name as the set? Recent edits to include novel plots in Ravnica, Guildpact and Dissension seem to me to give undue weight to the novels, stealing too much focus from the set, but I'd like to kno people's thoughts on this. --Ashenai 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps adding a (book) or (novel) to the title for any articles on MTG fiction? I'm not sure if there's a preferred descriptor, but using one seems to be the logical choice. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the books are notable enough to deserve their own article. Perhaps a little section within each set about the plot of the novel? If you don't agree, then I'd recommend Ravnica (novel), leaving Ravnica to point to the set (and add a link from the set to the book). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the notability guidelines for books/novels aren't completely accepted, and they don't cover franchise fiction in particular. Certainly some coverage of the storyline as covered in the novels is appropriate, but where to draw the line? I'm not sure there's much in the way of consensus yet. At the least, List of Magic: The Gathering novels isn't that much different from List of BattleTech novels or even List of Care Bears books. OTOH, the list of "For Dummies" books was deleted. So...who knows? It's still pretty up in the air. I think some coverage is appropriate, but I've not got an idea where to draw the line. There are even some folks who say any non-vanity published novel merits an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Magic Writers?

A section for notable Magic Writers would be appreciated. Many writers already have their own page. Stealthymatt 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for a category actually. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gleemax

It seems this article has been created, possibly as the result of some sort of marketing campaign. Just thought folks here should know about it, and the ongoing AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourced notable cards

How can you source cards from so long ago such as arabian nights. All people are doing is removing info instead of making the effort to find references. You are ruining the articles completly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.232.240 (talk • contribs)

Well, I would suggest looking for articles on the actual cards. There are retrospectives even today about various older cards. Not that I think A Man in Black's methods are effective, I think his actions are less cooperative than they should be, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, for those curious, it's because of actions like this [1] [2] and so forth for the rest of the magic sets that I suspect this anonymous IP is upset. I do think this is if not quite disruptive, a bit hasty. In some cases like the ones for Homelands (Magic: The Gathering) and The Dark (Magic: The Gathering), I've done what I could to fix it. I certainly agree there are a few iffy edits in the notable card sections, but I don't think this blind removal of the sections is appropriate. I'm not going to blindly revert them either, but I do think a little more caution would be advised. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this page [3] would probably be an excellent source for anybody else looking to add information about cards. I've done what I can for now. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I do feel removing parts of the articles is very hasty and the unknown IP address has a right to be upset, further up he mentions he was using the info and for someone to simply just delete is unjust. Surely memebers can find the references needed and amend as they go, replacing unsourced info with sourced info but simply deleting it isn't the way to go Rohrecall, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, templates like {{fact}} would have been much preferable, as would more participation in the discussion here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted 3 edits made by A Man in Black, I wish to use the information/notable cards in the articles so I can track down the relevant sources/references. How whould I know which cards to get sources for if they are not in the article for me to see? I feel A Man in Black has taken it too far by simply deleting notable card sections, without showing any effort of tracking down information that may be helpful himself. Any deletions or edits are supossed to improve an article NOT take away from it. Also only admin surely have the right to tell people how long they have to sort an issue, if it takes 6 months to sort then so be it.Rohrecall 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit hasty? I brought this up three months ago, and these article have gone untouched since. How long do we keep opinionated, game-guide heavy unsourced content because someone claims they might someday fix it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you consider that your edits were blanket, and not given thought or consideration as far as I can tell. If you'd just removed a few and fixed others, it'd appear less hasty. But as I see it, you're moving far too quickly to fix something that isn't a big problem, if it's a problem at all. And you strongly object to what many people consider the most reasonable source. Now certainly some of the notable cards were obviously poorly chosen, but your method of handling it wasn't any better. FrozenPurpleCube 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AMIB, you are hasty, you deleted Notable Card sections 3 months ago and you are doing so again. You don't try to fix the articles yourself. Too much work for you? I guess you find it easier to just delete the whole section. Why don't you help improve the articles with information? --Mjrmtg 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He reverted all my edits back, as far as i'm concerned AMIB is hindrance to the articles. I personally say delete all Magic Articles and be done with it. People like AMIB is every reason I dislike Wikipedia people always too easy to delete but will never lend a hand to fix. I will get my information from elsewhere in the future. Rohrecall 12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't let one Wikipedia editor's hasty actions get you down, it can be irritating (and believe it or not, you'll probably irritate folks yourself, I know I have), but that's why we assume good faith and treat other users with respect. I don't think the consensus here is with AMIB at all, so perhaps he'll consider rethinking his opinions or at least methods. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He's editing in defiance of consensus: as long as he does so, he can be freely reverted, as far as I'm concerned. He does not seem to understand or accept that 1) WP:N makes it clear that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, just the existence of the article itself (in other words, only the sets themselves need to be notable, not the particular cards, and 2) WP:CONS is policy. He's simply going by his own personal guidelines, which would be fine, if he could get people to agree with them. Which he apparently can't. --Ashenai 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different but related note, I don't think we should have Pojo's up as a suggested reference for notable cards on the main page (completely sidesteping other issues about the section). It's basically just the opinions of the bunch of people, and I don't see how that can help anyone really source any claims they might make about the notability of a card. Magic Arcana and Star City Games appear to be fine, but Pojo's should be removed from the list. ----lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com as a reliable source questions

Ok, just to get some outside views, I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about use of Wizards.com as a source for Magic related information. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely they must be used when it comes to Storylines, design and other info they offer on the set. Links to the official site should be used as they are the official site, almost all articles on any topic link to an official site of sorts and use them as references, MTG should be no different. I understand there may be "bias" but feel if they state a card is good or notable its their opinion, no different to any other site. I really do feel strongly that the official site should be used. Rohrecall 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Using them as a source for opinionated claims about their own products is a Bad Idea. We don't cite ford.com for "Notable features" of their cars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you think it's a bad idea, but please tell me why it's a bad idea. Give me an example of a usage you find objectionable. Articulate a problem, don't just assert it. Then please tell me how it will apply to every possible usage of their site. See, while I feel it's possible there could be a concern, I don't see it as a concern of such a level that it's impossible to use the content. Merely to be appropriately cautious. And Ford Taurus does link to Ford's website. Check it out. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the compromise suggested by Piotrus will probably be acceptable to almost all parties involved (other than possibly A Man In Black), so I propose I quick vote on the subject. The suggestion is that we tag all notable cards sourced from MTG.com with some sort of tag/text/footnote that says, in effect: card X is considered notable by the publisher. --Lifebaka 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest a vote, but rather an ongoing discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea because it's treating promotional material as something other than advertising. Ads are not sources.

These lists suck. They're terrible, useless, contextless lists of trivia. Ideally, we're incorporating this into the body of the article, largely as part of critical reception of the sets. We can't use WOTC's site for critical reception, nor can we use it for "notable" cards, because WOTC taking note of their own product is neither the general nor Wikipedia's particular definition of notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't suck. Do you? Everything was fine until you came back. No rebuttal to your Ford agument? --Mjrmtg 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They're certainly not trivia. Magic cards are the most important part of the game, analogous to chess pieces. The Chess article lists the pieces used to play the game, and add information about them. The Magic articles should do the same. Obviously, it is infeasible to list every one of the several hundred Magic cards in an expansion, but that's no excuse for not listing any. And I fail to see why WotC's statements on which cards are notable should be disregarded. In fact, I think you are the only editor who finds this an issue. --Ashenai 10:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon CCG has a Wikipedia article for each individual card. Magic coverage is less crufty, yet we can't ignore the cards with unique properties, because those are the most interesting part of the set. Wizards are ok source for the facts that are listed to justify the notability. The notability itself should be self-evident from those facts. Your removal of Kai Budde's card has left me completely dumbfounded: if this isn't notable card, then what is? Grue 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion stems from the term "notable". When we're talking about "notable cards", we're not saying those cards meet WP:N guidelines: we're using the word "notable" in the English sense, not in the Wikipedia sense. I cannot see how AMIB's persistent crusade to delete all the cards is helping the project. --Ashenai 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not, its not helping the project at all. I'm a new member I didn't know anything about AMIB's time limit of 3 months, is he some sort of Admin or does he just feel that he has a right to delete it all after a certain time? I tried to sort things and he simply reverts the edits, it comes accross child like and that he isn't even a fan of MTG as if he was surely he would take a different approach. Rohrecall 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He is a WP:ADMIN (I think), but admins here don't have any special rights about deciding what an article should or should not contain. He may or may not be a fan of MtG, that doesn't really apply: I've nominated entire articles for deletion which were about subjects I am a fan of. The only question, really, is whether his actions are helping the project or not, and whether he can build any sort of consensus supporting his cause. Neither of these currently appears to be the case. --Ashenai 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not acting as an admin, as far as I can tell, so that's not relevant or meaningful. I do think it's clear it's not helping, so perhaps a modification of methods will occur. FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, what ads are being used as sources? I'm sorry, but if you're going to treat Wizards.com as nothing more than an advertisement, then I'd say it is you who are making a severe mistake. Their website is actually a professionally done site that covers the subject in a reasonably journalistic manner. It's no different than say how NASCAR.com covers their sport. I don't agree with you about incorporating the cards into the body text in all cases, since the individual cards are often better noted when looked at on their own. Why? Because often the cards have no thematic connection as to their reasons for being notable. Nor is the description of a card as being "notable" simply a matter of critical reception. Sometimes it might be, but sometimes it is because of the uniqueness of individual cards. Perhaps you might want to look at the discussion above as to what might constitute a notable card. We aren't using Wizards simply to decide what's notable and what's not in all cases, but often simply using them to verify what fits the criteria established. Now this doesn't mean that every card that was listed as notable meets them, but that's another matter. Still, I've noted that you've reverted multiple times cards I've re-added as notable that had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that could be considered opinion. Leviathan is either the first card with double-digit power and toughness or it's not. Timmerian Fiends was either the last ante card or it wasn't. Why do you remove them?

In any case, I don't think the consensus is with you, so I suggest you find another way to accomplish what you wish. Not that I'm clear on it, perhaps if you provided an example of how you'd do it instead of your blanket removals. That apparently isn't helping. FrozenPurpleCube 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a case of AMIB thinking the official site just "advertises" and is biased. If anything they are usually the first to point out the errors and the such. They cover the events that take place showing what players make cards notable, The quality of a card/deck is down to a player not down to what any site says so its not them spinning it to make out their product is better or a particular card is good, I feel the official site is pretty unbiased and just as opinionated and honest as any other site. Rohrecall 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting an article on Wizards.com is not the same thing as quoting the entire company themselves, even if it's Mark Rosewater. Therefore, quoting an article in regards to a card's notability is from that person's viewpoint and will probably be backed up with some sort of evidence (e.g. Mike Flores claiming Pact of Negation is powerful). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Wizards.com represents a valid content creator, as I've said before, while they're not a Consumer Reports-independent, they certainly offer a professional, well-written and not overly biased website that covers Magic quite well. I honestly haven't seen a single actual example of them being demonstrated as biased, let alone such widespread bias that they can't be used at all. I accept in concept the idea that some caution is warranted in using them, but I think the standard AMIB is setting is a tad too high. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a really good point Temporarily Insane, things they say are backed up with evidence & statistics. You have Mike Flores, Frank Karsten and the reports of the pro tours, GP's and other sactioned events. Rohrecall 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The official site is biased. It's published by a company with a vested interest in promoting the game. It's particularly enlightened self-interest (it's fairly candid, often brings in people noted for writing for outside sites), and can be useful for describing, say, the development history of a set. However, it isn't a source of notability for anything, as it is at its heart an advertising outlet. It exists because Hasbro feels it will increase interest in their game.

As for citing Wizards for the first card to do such-and-such, every single card that isn't a reprint (or functional reprint, like Balduvian Bears or whatnot - oh wait Balduvian Bears is the first renamed reprint of an older card ¬_¬) is the first thing to do something. Let's see...Blessed Wine is the first healing cantrip, Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text, Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-color activated abilities, and so on. (I could dig out more random cards if you'd like.) Implicit in our claim that a card is the first card to do such-and-such is the claim that this fact is important, and that's not a claim we can make sourced only to an advertising outlet.

The sad thing is everyone's too busy defending bad content instead of replacing it with good. It's not as though WOTC is the only kid on the block. Why aren't people breaking out their Scryes or Inquests? Why not hit the archives of Pojo's old MTG site, or SCG's archives, or even the Salvation or Londes archives?

These articles are terrible, and it's rather sad to see them defended as-is instead of people trying to improve them. (Lifebaka (talk · contribs) is the sole exception, having replaced some unsourced and badly sourced cards in Future Sight with ones sourced to Inquest, and kudos to him or her.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Starcitygames.com is just as biased then, they sell singles. They very well could be biased with the intention of selling more cards. That's pretty much double standards and the official site does not "advertise" anything they just go off what is happening in the meta-game. I can't find anything personally apart from the official site for the early sets. Any Help? Rohrecall 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Each of those websites is selling something, yes, so they, too, have an interest in seeing the game continue to thrive. I don't read most of those other sources, so I can't readily use them as sources, but they're not what we're discussing here. I'd say they're as unbiased as the Wizards website. So if people want to use them, then sure, by all means. But choosing, say, MagicCards.info over Gatherer is silly. They're both MtG card databases, the only difference is one is maintained by Wizards itself. So why is it preferable to quote an article on SCG over one on Wizards, even if they both have the same author (say, The Ferret)? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide examples of the bias you've found on Wizards.com. And I think you're confusing notability for a subject, and notability within a subject. Nobody is going to argue that Magic itself isn't notable. That'd be dumb. Thus we don't have to worry about whether Magic itself is notable, so the real question is "What's worth covering on the subject of Magic" (in all its various iterations and for that purpose, I think wizards.com is as fair a source as any, and better than most. If you've got any particular examples of problems, I've never seen them. Your objection is a blanket denial, without demonstration of anything. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. You can say the pages are in terrible shape if you want, I think that's a bit excessive, but I agree they can be improved, so I just consider that to be a bit zealous choice of language on your part. If you want to discuss what criteria we should have for what makes a card worth covering, fine, but that's *not* necessarily related to the subject of sources. Try this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic:_The_Gathering#Suggested_criteria_for_notable_cards FrozenPurpleCube 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SCG is selling coverage of the game as much as they're selling the product. Scrye and Inquest are selling coverage of the games, period. This is a far cry from being owned and operated by the publisher of the work in question.

As for using magiccards.info over Gatherer, who suggested that? If we're going to be linking to scans of the cards every time we mention a card (a discussion for another time), better to use the site doing so legally than some other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That was an example, in reference to citing gatherer for "uniqueness" claims, not for linking card images. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Scans of cards aren't sufficent sources for claiming that such-and-such card is unique. Every card is unique in some way, and one would have to examine every card to back up a claim of uniqueness. (For example, I could claim that Grizzly Bears is unique, and you'd have no way to verify that by looking only at that card; instead, you'd have to look at every card to find cards like Balduvian Bears.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to try to make things clear with some points here.

There is no objection to Wizards.com as a provider of true and reliable content except with a possible, though as yet, undemonstrated bias.
While there may be a concern that Wizards could be biased, there has been no demonstration that there is a pervasive problem with their content, thus caution is the reasonable response, not blanket denial.
What content a given article contains is a matter of editorial discretion, the same with the content of any other article. The policies and practices that shape that are many, but in the case of verifiability, Wizards.com is acceptable.
This is distinct from the concept of notability which determines whether or not a given subject has an article.
That with regards to the articles on individual sets, there is no objection to there overall notability, thus all questions are matters of content, nothing more.
It is generally accepted that the content of the articles on the individual sets will mention cards that meet certain criteria, such as that suggested above at [4]. If there are any other ideas for how it should be done, that's not related to whether or not Wizards.com is used as a source to verify whether or not a particular card meets that criteria.
While in many cases, the notable cards sections of various set articles were poorly done, and unreferenced, they weren't such a problem that they needed to be removed wholesale. Especially since in some cases, like the YMTC and Invitational ones, it would have been more appropriate to reference them than delete them.

Anyway, that's what I'm saying here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest and most effective to deal with all sources of notable cards on a source-by-source basis. There are articles from MTG.com which are great to make certain points. As far as I can see it, AMIB only takes offense to potential bias in articles from wizards.com, so only those articles which use hard facts (Online Tech, for example) should be used. This same idea would have to apply to all other sources as well, however, in order to remove ALL cases where opinion or bias might render a source useless. Blanketing wizards.com as a no-no for sources would be a bad idea even more so than overusing it, far as I can see. But whatever standards we apply to it should apply to all other sources as well, lest the same issues arise. --Lifebaka 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see that AMIB's objection is merely to the idea potential bias of Wizards.com, as even when there's no bias in a statement (such as cards that were Invitational or YMTC), it doesn't seem like wizards.com is an acceptable source. Or when the characteristic of the card is unique such as the last ante card, or the first card with a double-digit power and toughness. Those are basic facts, not opinions. Whether or not the information should be included is another question, but one independent of the question of sources. Perhaps AMIB might care to take part in that discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com isn't a reliable source for claims that such-and-such product or aspect of a product is important or noteworthy, as wizards.com exists only to promote WOTC's products. It's a perfectly good source for insight on how sets were developed, or simple publishing facts (release dates and such). When they start talking about the impact of their products, take it with a massive grain of salt, and don't use it as a source.

As for the lists of "notable cards," they mostly suck, sourced or not. Unsourced parts I've been removing (because they really suck), but, ideally, we're going to be talking about cards in the context of the body of the article, not making lists of trivial facts.

I've been quietly hammering Time Spiral into a less fansite-y frame with more emphasis on being accessible to non-fan readers and including more of the real-world kinds of facts and context. Ideally, I'd like to drive it to GA, so we can have an exemplar to help guide cleaning up the other articles.

That said, I'm extremely disappointed that nobody has yet suggested that other sources be found for the factual claims in these articles. Less excuses, more research, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that Wizards.com should be used on its bare word as to whether or not a given card is notable, so don't worry about that. I merely seek use of wizards.com to verify information with regards to whether a given card is notable. The issue of how to decide what cards or notable or not is a separate discussion which I invite you to participate in above. This goes for the content of the notable cards over-all, which I agree did need work. But that had nothing to do with wizards.com being used as a source. As to whether wizards.com should be used for the impact of their product, that would depend on their statements, and what other sources say or don't say. I can imagine cases where Wizards might say one thing, and another source say another. In such cases, I might well say include statements from both of them. To do otherwise might be biased. FrozenPurpleCube

AMIB has a point about the lists being somewhat in conflict with WP:TRIVIA. Another method of representing the cards ought to be used instead. At the very least, the lists should be changed into some sort of prose. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a style-issue, thus not directly connected to this subject, but to me, it's not like this is a list of general trivia, but a list of individual items that warrant coverage in that form. It'd be one thing if the sections were isolated facts, but with the connecting element being that they are facts about cards, it's not a trivia section problem any more than say, a list of characters is a problem in an article about a book, movie or television show. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The pojo site and Scrye's site don't offer anything. I've found more info on the official site, more than on any other third party site. Also SCG don't offer anything either, I couldn't find a thing on them for the Urza's saga page. I suggest that only for sets after 2000 (Invasion) should other sites be the main focus as anything before is tough to find.--Rohrecall 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I say the lists are in conflict with WP:TRIVIA only because they are lists. The same information represented in any other format does not violate WP policies, as WP:TRIVIA does not stipulate on whether or not lists of information actually are trivia. If we can find any way to change the format of the information, that'll be one potential problem with the MTG set articles gone, and will probably remove much of the need for sources, depending on how the change is accomplished. If we use the cards as examples of other sourced information, sourcing them wouldn't be a problem. ----lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is a list doesn't mean it's necessarily trivia. We even have Featured lists. A set is by definition a list of cards. It's just that there's not much to say about most of them. Grue 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, just because it's a list doesn't mean it's trivia. Even the WP:TRIVIA page notes exceptions like "Convert bullet points to prose where possible, although in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate, such as Cameos or Continuity errors." . Now whether certain cards in the set is narrowly focused or not is an important question, but I think they clearly are, even if the pertinent facts are somewhat disparate. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulleted lists of disparate facts are what WP:TRIVIA is meant to discourage, and what we have on our hands. Some of these cards are firsts or lasts, some are powerful, some are odd, some influenced later cards. Their common links are tenuous at best.

These are not narrowly-focused lists, and cards worth noting should be noted in the text of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, the key feature is they are still individual cards, which is a very particular theme. And I think trying to merge all of that into the text of the article would actually tend to bury the facts in an unhelpful way. FrozenPurpleCube 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Urza's Saga - References needed, please help

After doing what I can for the Alpha, Beta and Unlimited articles, I have taken it upon myself to get the notable card section for Urza's Saga to meet the standard that is currently been discussed about notable cards. I have re-written the section and have found several references for the cards, yet I'm having trouble finding references for two cards. Morphling and Yawgmoth's Will, noting thier power and impact on the game so if any one has any please either leave them at my talk page or post on its talk page here [5]. Or if anyone else wishes to help, let me know and we can get it all up to date and correct. Thanks --Rohrecall 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Managed to find what I was after but sources outside of mtg.com are impossible find mainly due to the sets age and the fact very few articles actually directly state why a card is powerful, apart from the ones I found. --Rohrecall 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the cards issue with regard to policy

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

I believe the recent controversy has obscured the entire issue more than clarified it, so here's how I see policy relating to this project.

WP:N says: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia." Therefore, we are under no obligation to show that certain cards are notable on their own, only that the sets themselves are notable (which no one is debating). WP:N only talks about the notability of an article.
WP:RS talks about reliable sources. Gatherer is controlled by WotC, but i widely considered the most reliable source on cards, so I suggest we keep using that to source all of our cards. When giving information about a certain card, Gatherer is sufficient as a source if the information is about an aspect of the card that can be checked in Gatherer. For instance, the statement "B.F.G. has the largest printed power and toughness of any creature in Magic" can be checked in Gatherer, so giving a Gatherer search as a source is fine. Other statements need sources. Note, again, that we do not need to show that information about a card is notable, since WP:N does not apply to article content.
WP:TRIVIA does not directly apply to the current articles, since lists of cards are not trivia. Trivia would be things like "Mark Rosewater's second son was born while he was working as Head Developer of this set", or "this is the first set with Homarids", which are already integrated into the article body, and so are in accordance with WP:TRIVIA. Bulleted lists of game pieces (cards, in this case) are fine: Chess has a bulleted list of game pieces, for instance.
WP:CONS applies to all editors, and all edits, for all articles. WP:BRD explains the correct process: that it is perfectly all right to make bold edits, but once they have been shown to be against consensus and reverted accordingly, the correct course to follow is to build consensus for the proposed changes.

In short, we are obligated to give reliable sources for any statement about Magic cards, as per WP:RS and WP:V. We are not obligated to show or discuss the notability of any card or card fact, as per WP:N. WotC articles are generally reliable sources; there may be exceptions for certain statements, which will have to be debated separately, on their own merits. --Ashenai 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gatherer is not a sufficient source for anything. It is direct, personal observation, the epitome of original research. These sets are not themselves sources, merely subjects.

WP:TRIVIA is applicable because these facts about cards are so disparate. Some cards are firsts or lasts, some are powerful or weak, some are odd, some influenced later sets, some are inspired by previous ones.

WP:CONS doesn't override things like WP:V or WP:OR. No amount of people really wanting an interpretation they all like will override the need for sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim that Gatherer is not a sufficient source for anything? That is completely and utterly wrong. Gatherer is an excellent source for any number of facts, like whether a card appeared in a set, who the artist is for a particular version of a card, the flavor text on it, any pertinent official ruling... Is it a source for every particular fact or detail? No, it's not, but to claim that it is absolutely not a sufficient source for anything? That is patently absurd. It may be a primary source in that it's directly reproducing the cards, but that still means it is usable. There is no WP:V or WP:OR question here, I think we all concur sources are appropriate for any claim. The only question here is whether wizards.com is an acceptable source. You have not made a case for them being unacceptable. If there's a question as to how to cover the notable cards in a set, that is simply one of style, and it would be best to discuss that on its own merit in order to avoid confusing issues. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gatherer is the best and most reliable source for raw card (rules) information. Debating this is patently ridiculous. --Ashenai 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Gatherer is good for some trivial facts, you're right there. It cannot be used for any evaluative claims, though. (Linking Gatherer isn't a source for saying such-and-such card is the first or last anything, for example.) My point was that it's no different from referring directly to the cards themselves, WRT sourcing issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, as for wizards.com, wizards.com is not a reliable source for evaluative claims about their own products, such as what sets are important or not and what cards are important or not. This is because, as a WOTC outlet, any such evaluative claim is going to go through the filter of WOTC's own self-interest.

We should not use wizards.com for evaluative claims of WOTC's product. Examples of such claims which should not be sourced to wizards.com are which cards are noteworthy for anything but design reasons (which will need to be sourced to an article by somebody who has some business commenting on that; Mark Rosewater or Aaron Forsythe or Matt Cavotta, for some current examples) or tournament impact (which will need to be sourced to an article by somebody who has some business commenting on that; Flores's articles are fine, the guy who writes "multiplayer Magic" not so much) and sets which are popular or not (this even goes for negative commentary; dogging Homelands or Masques serves the purpose of highlighting the latest products differences from it).

We should also distinguish between promotional and editorial content. Promotional content should be treated as any other advertising, and not used for anything but the blandest facts if at all. An example of the former is You Make The Card; these cards aren't independently noteworthy unless someone other than WOTC commented on them, and no claim other than "WOTC held an online contest called You Make The Card to design such-and-such card" should be sourced to them. Additionally, these cards don't really need to be mentioned other than in passing unless someone other than contemporaneous wizards.com articles has seen fit to comment on the card. (Crucible of Worlds has seen much commentary, Forgettable Ancient not so much.)

This isn't to say wizards.com isn't useful for a source at all. I've already given a lot of examples above of how it should be used. Insight on the design process from the people doing that design is useful. Some of the wizards.com articles are written by outside writers about subjects which aren't entirely self-serving for WOTC; the state-of-the-metagame articles written by Flores and Karsten and other established writers are a good example of this. Entirely trivial facts, such as release dates and such, can and should be sourced to the horse's mouth, so to speak.

This is how Wikipedia treats company mouthpieces: with the utmost care, given the publisher's inherent interest in the subject. It isn't even a conflict of interest; wizards.com serves one purpose, and that is to generate interest in and promote WOTC's products.

I've been picking on the "notable cards" sections because they're evaluative and largely unsourced (and ugly and often wrong or dumb, but these are lesser concerns). Unsourced evaluations, interpretations, and opinions don't belong on Wikipedia, we all know that. On top of this, however, evaluations, interpretations, and opinions from the publisher of a product aren't useful, either.

Frankly, I'm rather disappointed at this project, particularly in the time spanning March to now. What happened to WP:MTG#URGENT - Notable Cards? There was some discussion of what a notable card should be, but little effort or discussion of the fact that these sections and indeed the articles containing them are exceedingly poorly sourced, aimed only at a specialist reader, and fairly poorly written overall. To put things in perspective, the Pokemon Wikiproject has put more effort into sourcing, article quality, and encyclopedic tone than this project.

I intend to continue working on MTG articles, cleaning up the many opinionated, trivial, unsourced, and just plain badly written articles on the subject. I can only hope that doing so serves as a good example for this project, but its recent history gives me little hope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you do realize Gatherer is usable for many things. Now about wizards.com as a source, the thing you keep missing is the fact that there is nobody disputing caution in the use of Wizards.com. But caution isn't grounds for a blanket prohibition. Hence it being important to examine it in the individual circumstance, not to make sweeping declarations that it can't be used for a given purpose. Thus I request evaluation of any statement sourced to Wizards.com on its own merits. No more, no less. Is this unacceptable to you? I think everybody agrees that caution is appropriate. But it seems to me that you're declaring things summarily unacceptable without even considering them. Or providing examples of problems. The closest things to an example is some comment about the Greatest-Johnny set. That didn't convince me of any problem. It also doesn't help that you've reverted bare facts sourced to wizards.com. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And as far as it goes, I don't deny that the M:TG pages overall need work. But so do many things on Wikipedia. Sometimes things can be a bit messy. Oh well. As long as we're stuck at this impasse, it's hard to go anywhere. Heck, I'm still troubled by the way you seem to have a problem with mentioning every YMTC "winner" . Is it so hard to grasp that their unique nature of being designed by the public is worth noting? And frankly, I'd be surprised if every one of them wasn't given an article in it in various CCG magazines when it's announced. It'd be one thing to say they should have their own article (or even one for the YMTC contest, which I think could be done), but really, it seems you have a problem accepting them at all. That comes across as a bit odd to me. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From the sidelines: It doesn't look like AMIB is saying that wizards.com, or WotC for that matter, should flat out be barred as a source for any information. He does point out places where WotC is the best, or only, source that can be cited. What he is railing against, and the guidelines do seem to support him in this, is using the produce of the cards as a source for ranking importance or notability. From those, it is clear that for evaluations of that nature need to be cited from sources other than 1) the editor writing the passage and 2) the producer of the items being extolled or decried. There is a work around, but it needs the editor(s) putting the passage together to find a fair chunk of old material. Roughly:

"When promoting set Foo, WotC used cards Fin, Fan, Foom, Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Fud to promote it.[Cite articles from trade magazines, and ad campaign] After the release of Foo, players found Fin, Fo, Fud, Tra, and La to be stand outs,[Cite InQuest, Scry, et al reviews] but Foom and Fum were over rated.[Same type of cite] Also shortly after release, Bada, and all other cards from Foo that used the "Bing" ability were banned from Type 2 tournaments as broken.[DCI Bulletin #]"

This would generate a list of notable and/or important cards from a set and it would also satisfy the need for the notability being assigned by outside of WotC.

Side note: AMIB has pointed out that most MtG cards are, by their nature, unique combinations of cost, power, and effects. As a class the YMTC "winners" are noteworthy as they come from outside the normal development process, as individual cards though, they are as unique as any other. - J Greb 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've found AMIB to be a bit hardline, as he has expressed quite blanket statements against using Wizards.com. Perhaps some of them were mistakes like the one about use of gatherer above, but I do feel his position is not one based on the same approach as myself or others. I prefer individual examination of the circumstances. His seems to be blanket against some usages.

As for when it comes to identifying which cards are notable, that's really its own discussion, one which needs to be restarted. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that the "all Magic cards are unique" argument is just muddying the waters. Every object in the universe is unique, in its own way. Common sense tells us that "the first blind person to climb Everest" is a brand of uniqueness that is worth mentioning, while "first overweight 32-year-old woman to hold 43 M&M's in her mouth for over a minute and a half" is not, even though both are unique. Similarly, common sense tells us that "first vanilla 1/1 Wizard" is not interestingly unique, while "first card to mention the stack" is. --Ashenai 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we could use a little help with debating this issue. AMIB has agreed to giving mediation a try. Accordingly, I've listed this page on the Mediation Cabal's case page, see the template at the top. Anyone interested in this and related issues is welcome to participate. --Ashenai 09:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

All of the discussion of the mediation will be on this page. Since the debates have been scattered onto multiple talk pages, I will ask each party to give a statement on the matter, and what they suggest to resolve the issue. Sr 13 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My feelings can be found immediately above, beginning with "Now, as for wizards.com..." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the issue of whether Wizards is an acceptable source or not is actually a tangential issue, and not what I think this mediation should be about. Similar problems have been brought up, and resolved amicably, before.

My problem is that you, AMIB, seem to have an active disregard for consensus. I understand that you mean well, but your methods of sporadically participating in debate, then proceeding to ignore what everyone else has said and edit-warring without further discussion are not appropriate. You keep bringing up WP:V like a mantra, ignoring the fact that your interpretation of how WP:V applies to this issue differs significantly from everyone else's.

I am quite ready to debate the matter of Wizards' usability as a source further, but I would like you to stick to debating it only, until you've established at least a rough sort of consensus in favour of your arguments, and not simply edit-warring. Posting a block of text on this talk page every once in a while and then largely ignoring counter-arguments is not how consensus is formed.

As for the specific issue you brought up, I would like to echo Mr. Manticore, whose input you have not yet responded to: there's nothing wrong with advising caution in using Wizards sources, but this cannot be debated "in general". Show us a couple of specific examples where you feel Wizards is used as a source and should not be, and we'll actually have something to discuss. --Ashenai 07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These lists of "notable" cards are an exceptionally bad place to be using wizards.com as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are used to verify facts. Again, you're speaking in generalities. Wizards.com sources are not primarily used to establish a card's notability (as I have shown, WP:N specifically states that an article's elements, in and of themselves, need not be shown to satisfy it); they are used to underpin specific statements describing the cards' design, usage, tournament impact, ban history, etc. MTG.com articles are a perfectly valid way to source these type of facts. Again, could you point to one or two specific examples where you believe otherwise? --Ashenai 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AMIB finds it easier to delete the sections rahter then give examples or fix the sections (as he is still deleting them) He rather someone else fix them. I've given up restoring them, helps my blood pressure to ignore his bad faith edits. --Mjrmtg 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AMIB thinks we're just plain better off without claims that various cards are "notable" unless useful sources accompany them, instead of trying to justify someone else's opinionated claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Like has been mentioned before, we're mostly fine with changing the title text to "Example cards", if that helps. I must stress yet again that only the subjects of articles (in this case, the Magic sets themselves) need to be shown to be notable. WP:N clearly explains that an article's elements do not need to be proven notable on their own. Please don't ignore points of policy that you don't like. --Ashenai 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of factual claims. There are no sources for these claims. Someone has brought up the lack of sources multiple times, over the course of months. At some point, we remove the unsourced claims. That point has come. This is an elementary case of verifiability; specifically, the lack thereof. If you're going to revert an unsourced claim back into an article, source it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This still leaves us with plenty of people reverting him, but the current situation is far from ideal, in many ways. AMIB, your truculence and long periods of silence on talk pages (while continuing the edit war) is not helpful, and serves only to drive people who are tired of arguing with a brick wall away from the project. I don't know if this is a strategy you employ willfully, but consensus building should not consist of exhausting and driving away people who do not agree with you. --Ashenai 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been restricting myself to removing wholly unsourced, opinionated claims, as well as superfluous non-free images, and still seen reverts with no explanation other than "rv". Last I checked, we do need references for opinionated claims. Nobody seems to be paying attention to what they're reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Expansion set logo images

Participants of this WikiProject might be interested in engaging in the discussion on Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets regarding the use of images in the Magic: The Gathering sets article. —Lowellian (reply) 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Keyword List AfD

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords has been nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've spoken my piece, though I suspect the problem will be with the way the game guide provision of WP:NOT is selectively enforced. There are other pages that I've nominated as game guides, and you'll find people will go out of their way to deny them being a game guide, but I suspect those self-same people would jump over themselves to dump this one. Sigh. A pity, but this is the sort of thing that's frustrating me off Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering deck types

I was just looking at this page, and it seems like it's getting a bit full of individual decks that maybe aren't so important, or well-sourced. Or at all. Anybody else agree? Or have suggestions on cleaning it up? Conceptually, I support the existence of this article, but I don't think it should be laden with individual decks. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like all the examples, either. Get rid of them. I'd prefer it to be more focused on what makes a deck aggro-control instead of just control or just aggro, etc. I'm sure there are some good articles out there for that. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mindslaver Note

I made a small edit to the Mirridon page. It had a note about Mindslaver (that it was the only card in the game that allowed a player to control an opponent's actions) that didn't take into account the existence of Word of Command. I didn't delete the note, as some apparently thought that it was warranted, but I included that it was one of two cards that had such an effect.--199.125.45.10 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Marked Inactive

I have placed Template:Inactive on the front page of this WikiProject because it appears to now be largely inactive.

a sustained discussion on this Talk page does not appear to have taken place since June/July 2007
the last participant to join was in August 2007
the last update to "things we are working on" was in March 2007

As the template states, if you disagree with the assessment that this WikiProject has gone inactive, remove the template from the main page. In addition to the template placement here, I will be listing the inactivity at...

Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's card to be deleted

Please, pay atteniton to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jimbo mtg card.jpg since the picture is widely used by this project members and even in the stub template. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion are strong. --Egg ✉ 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New infobox round two!

JamesLucas has been working on a new userbox over at {{Infobox mtgset2008}} that we're planning on moving to replace {{Infobox mtgset}}. Anyone who wants to weigh in on whether or not the box is good for our purposes can do so at Template talk:Infobox mtgset2008. Also, for the sake of transparency, we've been discussing it at User talk:Lifebaka#MTG infobox. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translate those contents into Chinese

Hello, everyone. Now I am trying to translate these contents you contributed into Chinese, and a sample has been completed, you could see it from the page of Urza's Saga. It would be appreciated if you permit me a reusing of some ready-made templates that are originally purposed to support English version, like Info Mtgsets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.143.35.15 (talk • contribs) on June, 29 2007 at 03:14 (UTC)

An outside proposal

Hello there, we are a small wiki based solely on mtg! We have observed the problems with "Fancruft" that you people have. Since we are based entirely around "Fancruft" we see it as a waste of human resourcess whenever any article about magic gets deleted this way. We also understand the reasons why wikipedia.com acts as it does, and since many parts of our wiki are based on a more representable concept with links to the various pages on important magic categories it will be easy for you to duplicate that approach from our wiki! In return whenever any of your magic the gathering articles become marked as "Fancruft" we would like you to consider transferring them to our wiki so that your carefuly collected knowledge will not go completely wasted!

Use the link below to make contact with us!

http://mtgpedia.com/index.php?title=Guest_Forum

Barnstar

Do you think we could increase interest in this WikiProject if we offered a barnstar? 5 points on a star= 5 colors of Magic.--Bedford (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but we oughta' try at least. I'll go make a file presently. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Got one. I haven't uploaded it to Wikipedia, but I've got it on Flickr.com here. It's a .png with transparent background, which Flickr can't deal with—it looks much better with the transparency. I'm open to suggestions on it, or someone else making a better version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Decent first draft, although the edges look rough and the top point looks more yellow than white to me.--Bedford (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a dead thread and project right now, but I've got a better idea. We've already got an image at Image:Magic the gathering small pentagon.svg, so let's just use it. Creating a template at {{MTG barnstar}} now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it, when used it looks like this:

		The Magic: The Gathering Barnstar
		I, lifebaka (talk - contribs), hereby award this barnstar to WikiProject Magic: The Gathering for their excellent work on Magic: The Gathering-related articles on behalf of Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering. Wonderful work, WikiProject Magic: The Gathering!

Anyone got any issues with the way it looks/is worded/etc? lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see something resembling a star, if nothing more than a star who's five points each hit one of the circles. Don't want to make it look too much like the Order of the Eastern Star symbol, but something star-ish would be nice.--Bedford ^Pray 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd probably be easy enough for even me to manage. Just a minute. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it here. You can't see the transparency again, but at least it's on a white background this time. I tried coloring a barnstar again, but I just lack the skill to do it right. Also, I know it says "all rights reserved", but I've released all the images there into the public domain. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me.--Bedford ^Pray 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons at Image:MTG barnstar.png, so anyone else who wants it can have at it. New template looks like this:

		The Magic: The Gathering Barnstar
		I, lifebaka (talk - contribs), hereby award this barnstar to WikiProject Magic: The Gathering for their excellent work on Magic: The Gathering-related articles on behalf of Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering. You rawk, WikiProject Magic: The Gathering!

Feel free to adjust any of it as needed. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of putting my fingers in too many graphic design pies, I propose this version:

		The Magic: The Gathering Barnstar
		I, JamesLucas, hereby award this barnstar to WikiProject Magic: The Gathering for their excellent work on Magic: The Gathering-related articles on behalf of Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering.

The image is uploaded at a fairly good resolution (and in the public domain), so if anyone wanted to make a vertical format version down the road, it could be displayed larger. I can make adjustments if there are suggestions. Cheers JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your barnstar, James, but I wish the colors stood out better when in normal size.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, that rawks so much harder than I could ever do. Great work. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and compliments! I tweaked it again to account for Bedford's suggestion. The "stones" are now 25% larger; I darkened the blue and black; and I put a shine on them to make the color a little punchier. I also yellowed the metal a little bit, just because I thought it might look good against the Wikipedia blue. Take a look!

		The Magic: The Gathering Barnstar
		I, JamesLucas, hereby award this barnstar to WikiProject Magic: The Gathering for their excellent work on Magic: The Gathering-related articles on behalf of Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering.

Lifebaka, in order to make this a compare/contrast deal, I uploaded the new version as a new image. I don't know what's the 'kipedia-approved behavior regarding all-but-orphaned images, but we should probably clean-up the old version in a week or so, yeah? JamesLucas (" " / +) 11:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded mine to the Commons, and I'm not inclined to have it deleted just in case anyone wants it (it's public domain too, woo!). What I would suggest is uploading both Image:MTG barnstar02.png and Image:MTG barnstar01.png to the Commons as well (if you've unified your account, you'll have an account and be logged in as soon as you navigate to Commons). Uploading them at the same title would be most awesome, so we don't have to change anything here. Then the images here can be tagged with {{db-i8}} (or {{db-g7}}) and all Wikimedia projects will have access to them. For ease, this link takes you to the Commons main page. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. I posted both versions to commons. I kinda get that slipping :en: at the start of a tag implies the link is to our beloved English-language Wikipedia. But I won't need to update anything here though? Will it automatically try the commons once the Wikipedia version gets deleted? JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLucas (talk • contribs)

Should, though I'll admit I've never tried it. Image:MTG barnstar.png isn't on Wikipedia, even though the images shows up:

. The instructions for I8 say that if the two images have the same name admins don't need to do anything, so it appears so. If there's any issues we can fix them afterwards; currently there are no links to them other than here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The last is as good as we can hope for. We should go with it, and move on to other things. I've been wondering how to do a MTG Portal; more on that later.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you get the portal going and you need some graphicky stuff done (including but not limited to actual images), just tell me what is the what on my talk page. JamesLucas (" " / +) 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

{X}-class cats created!

I've just gone and created all the usual version 1.0 assessment categories {{mtgproject}} uses, so we at least have them. Here's a list:

Categories:

So now I'm gonna' go work on at least clearing out the unassessed ones, mostly into stub and start. Just an FYI. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also just created Category:Template-Class Magic: The Gathering articles and Category:Image-Class Magic: The Gathering articles, so sorting to those too. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And Category:Redirect-Class Magic: The Gathering articles. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you added those categories, the statistics bot is creating statistics. So I added that as a new section to the main page. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I would've found my way there eventually, by which I mean next year... Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's helping with tagging or assessing articles. The unassessed cat is nearly empty right now, and I'll make sure to take a look at it every day so it stays that way. So, I guess the next thing that needs doing is to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Assessment so we don't have all those redlinks in all the template transclusions. I'll give it a first shot tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Now all we need is more people! I'll see what I can do about that too. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image switch at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Userbox?

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Userbox about switching the current image used for the five-color wheel used in the stub tag and on {{mtgproject}}. Just an FYI. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been done per silent consensus. Anyone who dislikes should feel free to complain at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Userbox. Cheers! lifebaka++ 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Okay, this page is pretty long. 162Kb of text. So, I'm proposing we archive it using User:MiszaBot II to archive things older than one month (maybe longer). I'm currently thinking of using this configuration to archive:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 100K
}}

But of course everyting is open for discussion. If no objections are raised in three or four days I'm just going to do it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No responses, so I'm doin' it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation template?

I've built a personal invitation !template at User:Lifebaka/WP:MTG invite, and I'm wondering if we want something similar for the project in general. I personally like the one I wrote, but I'm a little biased there. I'm also thinking of possibly placing the invite at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Invite, but it might be easier to make a template with a shorter name, such as {{MTG invite}}. So, any ideas? lifebaka++ 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your invite on a talk page or two, and I think it's pretty darn close. Here's another take on it, incorporating a number of more-or-less independent changes which can be kept or discarded. For my own convenience, I'm not using the substitution code, but really I think it's a great touch.

Hi, I noticed your recent work on Mercadian Masques, and I was wondering if you would like to join

WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. This WikiProject is a place for editors interested in Magic: The Gathering to gather and discuss ways to improve Magic-related articles on Wikipedia.

You can join by adding your name to this list or by adding {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Userbox}} to your userpage. Even if you decide that you don't want to join the WikiProject, I hope that you'll continue to edit and improve Magic: The Gathering articles. Cheers, and happy editing! ~~~~

Mostly, I want to make sure the main points pop out quickly. I don't know if the image is kosher, but I think it'd be catchy. JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

note: I think 'discuss' is bold because it's linked to the talk page, which, of course, we're currently on. It should be a plain ol' link. JamesLucas (" " / +) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes. I've updated mine to show them, previous version visible in the history here. Using the image is fine; since it's a public domain thing, we can put it in any namespace on the 'pedia. I might use an <imagemap> later to link it to the WikiProject as well, but that's a pretty minor thing, I think.

Yeah, the text is bold because it links here. [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] always displays like that. See? Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blarg stagnation. I'm gonna' say we have silent consensus on the text and code, so what title should we stick it at? The more I think about it, I like the thought of Template:MTG invite or something else in template space, so it can be called easily. Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Invite is passable, but it'd be difficult to always type it out without a redirect (which'd be easy, we could use WP:MTG/I or WP:MTGI; these two would make it pretty easy to call). I'll have to test of the redirect method would work, though; I know it works with templates, but outside the template namespace it might not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I've verified that it works, I've created the invite at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Invite from my version, and made WP:MTG/I and WP:MTGI as redirects. So, {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Invite}}, {{WP:MTG/I}}, and {{WP:MTGI}} are all working versions of the invite. Check the usage to make sure you use it right, and other than that feel free to improve it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)