Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I recently noticed that the MTG Wikiproject lists getting this article Featured as one of its goals. At one time I was in favor of this too, but I think that for now I personally am happy keeping the article at GA status. That said, if someone is willing to take a shot at getting this to FA status, a few likely comments that could hopefully be preempted before the peer review.

This article currently has 34 footnotes, but some of these are just footnotes and not really references. I would estimate that an article of this size would require around 50 in-line citations to be seriously considered for FA status (arbitrary? Yes, but take a look at some recent candidacies). Plus, and here's the big one, they'd almost certainly like to see more _printed_ publications cited. Yes, some are listed at the top of the Refs, but they aren't in-line cited and are closer to a "Further Reading" section. I know this since I was the one who went in and added most of the first set of cites in response to the threatened GA re-review above, and not owning any Magic books, I exclusively used the Internet. Citing something like the Magic encylcopedia directly, that Flores book (Deckade I think?), the book on Jon Finkel (see here), or even back-issues of the Duelist would probably go over well. They might even offer a few new factoids worthy of the article.

(Side comment: I'm a fan of the "extra information" footnotes so that new editors don't think we "forgot" some tiny exception to a general statement. A footnote allows us to place the information there to be seen without cluttering up the article or flow, so the non-reference footnotes have a place.)

It's possible that some people will complain about the Awards section being a list as opposed to prose. I have no problem with the list myself, but if someone can find some good, independent sales data and critiques, there might actually be promise to using prose instead, renaming the section to "Popular and critical reception" or the like.

Lastly, there are still a few comments that have cite requests still on them, and those would definitely need to be cited first. SnowFire 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire subsection on SGC burwood is completely unencyclopedic and is more of an advertisment for this card shop. Unless there is some great historical significance to this place, i think the entire section should be deleted.

That section was just spam and has been deleted. — Aldaron • T/C 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic is the first example of the modern collectible card game genre (By McGeddon)

This doesnt flow very well, also MTG has been around for 14 years, so it isnt really Modern, as far as the life times of card games.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

Absolutely - I'm just charitably describing the CCG genre to which Magic belongs to as "modern", in contrast to the 1904 baseball game. Collectible card games did not exist as a recognised game genre before 1994, so I wouldn't have any issue with "modern" being dropped entirely, for flow. --

McGeddon

00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Each card has an illustration to represent the flavor of the card, often reflecting the setting of the expansion for which it was designed." First part is ok, but second part...If somone could explain, say how the first 10 white cards pictures from Ravnica set represent Ravnica, I would be most impressed.--203.87.127.18 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As the article goes on to say, each block of cards now has its own style guide with sketches and descriptions of the races and locations used in the expansion. Perhaps "often" could be toned down to "occasionally" after a look at the numbers, but it's still relevant - many Ravnica cards have city backgrounds to intentionally reflect the setting. --

McGeddon

08:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes occasionally is more accurate, but then again you could say "most of the time the artwork does not reflect the setting of the expansion for which it was designed".--203.87.127.18 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a logically identical wording, but a needlessly backwards way to word it. --

McGeddon

23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MCGEDDON "powerful wizards, who use magical spells, items, and fantastic creatures depicted on individual Magic card"

fantastic has many meanings, but lets just use the one you have selected, that it means fantasy! we will skip the powerfull wizards and the poor list of things on cards.

Fantasy creatures, some people me not being one of them (I think humans only exist in fantasy eg on magic cards) believe that humans actually do exist! To be neutral on this point maybe we should include the point that some "people believe humans are real and not a fantasy". There is plenty of refrences on here about people believing humans do exist, apparently they live on the planet earth (Prehaps if you are ever near it, you can go and see if they actually exist?), theres suppost to be over 6 billion of them! they must be lying around in massive piles!--203.87.127.18 07:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please try to remain

McGeddon

09:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought thats what the discussion is for, people are ment to read the discussion, not go editiing the page because of the comment. Check with the discussion first?--203.87.127.18 10:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we should be

McGeddon

10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

some creatures are definately not fantastic (Dindt you understand this comment?)

MCGEDDON "inaccuracy - nearly all Magic creatures are drawn from fantasy rather than the real world" Nearly all?, but not all. Its not a matter of rounding up. You knew there was atleast one exception (Most probally alot more) but you pyt false information back on thepage.

MCGEDDON "means "of fantasy", and "one or more of" is inappropriately specific for a generalised intro" Hey if you dont like the Wiki rules of formating, which I told you about before, compalin to Wiki, dont just ignore the rule you dont like.--203.87.127.18 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, as I said above, I didn't understand your comment - from your edit summaries I assumed you were misunderstanding what "fantastical" meant.

"One or more of" seems needlessly clumsy wording for a general overview of the game, to me, but I'll leave it to other editors to tidy the paragraph. --

McGeddon

10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You also didnt seem to understand, when i said what you where doing was against Wiki rules as you kept doing it repeadly--203.87.127.18 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the

McGeddon

11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel "fantastic" in regards to humans in perfectly fine. I realize that humans are not fantasy, but within the context of the game, they are usually pretty fantastic. Most have some sort of magical ability, be they wizards, druids, or the like.

Regarding "one or more of," it makes the sentence clunky and hard to read. I feel this should be excluded.

DbishopNWF

14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this wording:

Each game represents a battle between powerful wizards, who can use magical spells, fantastic items, and fictional creatures depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents.

I think nobody can object that a human can be a fictional "creature" (I think the most correct word would be "character", but in Magic creature don't refer only to monsters - Magic: The Gathering rules defines the word as "people or beasts that are summoned to attack opposing players and defend their controller from the attacks of enemy creatures.") And using "can" put it clear that sometimes you don't use all the three options, leaving the "one or more off" bit redundant. Wildie 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, "fictional" may be the proper fix here.

DbishopNWF

14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me Gscshoyru 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I put it myself? Or wait the "other side" comment?

And also thanks for the confusion, Dbishop - I was putting my comment in the section you created when puff, it desapeared :^) Wildie 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, I'm used to the current discussion being at the bottom of the page.

DbishopNWF

14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be off currently, so it may be a while before we hear from him... go ahead and do it. Gscshoyru 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done!

And waiting some claim like "there are some items that aren't fantastic, like swords!" Wildie 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Can" implies that there's a way to play it without using spells or items or creatures, which seems wrong (even a crazy all-land deck is still arguably using "items"). We could also maybe use a "the" before "magical spells" to clarify that all of these things are depicted on cards, not just the creatures.

Is "fictional" really any better than "fantastical"? It seems we're losing a bit of context (Magic is about fantasy-genre monsters, not, say, present-day cryptozoology or futuristic science-fiction mutants), and we're not really gaining anything - I don't see a problem with referring to someone like a Benalish Hero as a "fantasy human".

It's a good step forward, anyway. --

McGeddon

14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a second look, I agree with the above about the "can," it implies there's a way to play without them. Is there another way do say that? As for fictional, well... I also agree with McGeddon, but if it'll stop this war, then it's a viable change, though not as good as the original. And yeah. Go with the "the." Gscshoyru 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "the" sounds better than "can." I also prefer the use of "fantasic" over "fictional," but I feel that using fictional may fix this war. "Fictional" usually invokes more of a sci-fi mindset, whereas "fantasy" brings wizards and dragons to mind.

Honestly, even if humans arn't fantastic in the real world, the ones in the game are.

DbishopNWF

14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't concede a below-par edit simply because one user keeps reverting it.

And I think just dropping the "can" is fine - as it's an introductory section, it's acceptable to describe the game more generally, and 99.9% of decks contain spells, creatures and "items" of some sort. --

McGeddon

14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The player/wizard can use the spells/items/creatures cards for defeat the opponent. For me, it implies that is doing it (using the cards) is the way for doing that (defeat the opponent). You can opt to not use any card at all, you just don't will win this way.

For "fictional", I already put "fantastic" before items thinking on it, if you read in sequence magical/fantastic/fictional, the sense we want becomes clearer.

But I do not speak english natively, my interpretation can be not be the same of a native-speaker. Wildie 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the following:

Each game represents a battle between powerful wizards, who use the magical spells, fantastic items, creatures, and fictional characters depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents.

14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using characters and creatures (as "creature" include characters in the game vocabulary) in the same time, along with very generic terms like "items".

But, in this case, it could be "who use the magical spells, fantastic items and creatures, and fictional characters". Or two and's is worse? Wildie 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was worried about the double "and" too, actually. I was thinking that in using character it would indicate that there are humans involved as well. You are right though, the game mechanic designates those as creatures as well.

DbishopNWF

15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that the

18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple, direct and precise.

Even "mundane" creatures like human soldiers and grizzly bears are fantastic while characters in a fantastic setting (a common eagle is not fantastic; the ones in Lord of the Rings are).

(I would like a adjective before "items", but is only my æsthetic sense here... ) Wildie 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Looks good to me. — Aldaron • T/C 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.

DbishopNWF

19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Qeustion: Shouldn't an item that falls into the category of "collectable" have on average an increase in its value over time? If so then MTG cards fail to meet this standard. As proof peruse any auction site listing and you will find that the vast majority of these MTG cards are worth less than the paper they are printed on. Therefore one must conclude that MTG fails to meet the standar of collectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.93.181 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Small pre-note - I'd suggest in the future that you make comments towards the bottom of the page; if you don't, it's pretty hard to find comments just in the scope of the entire talk page :)

Getting back on track, the most general definition of a "collectible" item is something that people collect for a purpose. That purpose may be monetary gain, like you suggest, but it could also be enjoyment, or just for the sake of collecting.

Personally, I "collect" promotional cards from this game, which are notorious for value deflation rather than inflation over time. I collect them for the sake of collecting them, and it doesn't really mean anything in monetary terms to collect these for the monetary gain. 137.28.239.16 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The top/first picture on the article isn't a picture of the back of a Magic card. Actual card backs don't have the TM next to the DECKMASTER text. Can someone replace that picture with an accurate one? 129.174.176.4 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That appears to have been done, though I wonder why we choose to use such a low-quality image. The artifacts on it bother me. - Boss1000 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If wanted I think I could find a better picture of a back of a card; as the artifacts are kind of annoying. AnimaMage 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That one is from wizards.com anyway. Is that fair use? An individual photo from an Wikipedian would ensure it to be safe over this possibly questionable image, though, right? Why not use one? I might take one myself when I get time. - Boss1000 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A photo wouldn't help at all. The artwork is what bears the copyright more so than the image itself. That will not be in the public domain until 2088 or so, assuming no further extensions of the copyright act. Otherwise, a guy with a video camera in the theatre would mysteriously have copyright claims on his video- which he does, but that doesn't obviate the movie producer's claims on what was actually taped. The case where the photo will work and be free of copyright is something like a picture of a person, a car, or a PlayStation. While the internals of the car & PlayStation may possibly be protected, the appearance is not (unlike Magic artwork), so there's a difference between a photo taken by Toyota/Sony and one taken by a random person. SnowFire 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the image was just scaled up a bit. Someone changed it to the images native size, and it looks much better.—MJBurrage • TALK • 03:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of making a list of software that lets you play Magic for free.

These clients play without the rules, against another person other Internet.
Apprentice - http://www.magic-league.com/download/apprentice.php
Magic Workstation - http://www.magicworkstation.com/downloads.php

This project you play against another person other the Internet WITH the rules
Magic-Project - http://sourceforge.net/projects/magic-project/

This project lets you play against the computer with the rules
MTG Forge - http://sourceforge.net/projects/mtgforge/

207.203.80.15 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The legality of such programs is dubious. I seem to recall Magic Workstation specially being banned from being mentioned in the official forums. Considering they let you play the game for free when there's an official method that requires payment, I really don't think they should be mentioned in the article at all.--

SeizureDog

10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about MWS being banned from mention in the official forums, but I do know this about Apprentice and MWS: Wizards has no problem with people using Apprentice (I believe at one point they were working with its makers...don't quote me on that, though), as it doesn't use any representation similar to actual card images. MWS has a basic frame to represent the cards, and uses the mana and tap symbols that Wizards has trademarked, in addition to the ability to use card images (though they don't come with the program itself). For these reasons (copyright and such), Wizards doesn't really like MWS. That said, haven't heard of any cease and desist letters being sent to MWS. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was on the Apprentice development team and can verify that Wizards of the Coast claimed that it violated their intellectual property. Their assertion was that their intellectual property covered the process of how Magic The Gathering is played. They felt that Apprentice duplicated their intellectual property without their permission. Furthermore they felt that since online Magic The Gathering tournaments also duplicated their method of play that they also violated their intellectual property. Wizards of the Coast sent cease and desist orders to the Apprentice devolment team, as well as The Dojo website and the E-League online tourmanent organization. Chris Warden, the person who owned the source code for Apprentice negotiated a contract with Wizards of the Coast whereby they granted Apprentice the right to use their intellectual property. The exact details of the deal were never disclosed. Once that deal was completed Wizards of the Coast also discontinued any legal actions against the others involved. Wizards of the Coasts actions against Apprentice took place during the same time frame that they were developing their own method for playing Magic The Gathering online. There is a good online article covering the topic at http://www.nggnet.com/games/cgs/ArticlesReviews/Back/gmnews.htm. Hanswatson (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure it'd be appreciated on the main page, I appreciate seeing it here as I previously had know knowledge of these programs. Stealthymatt 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MWS does not use any trademarked wizards symbols. In mws, the tap symbol is a circle with a T and the mana symbols are letters in colored circles. MWS does not ship with any mtg cards installed either. There are downloadable plugins to get the mtg cards, and themes to use the actual trademarked symbols, and places to download the copyrighted card pictures but those are all created by 3rd parties. MWS is on firm legal ground and one of the reason it has not been shut down like some other free mtg software projects Laplie 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. They can't forbid nor arrest ppl for playing with photocopied cards or online with 3rd party programs, as long as ppl don't make profit out of it I don't see a reason to close such projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.172.112 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The article currently says that Korean and Traditional Chinese stopped being printed after Urza’s Saga (October 1998), but I have seen Korean 7th Edition (April 2001) , and Trad. Chinese 8th Edition (April 2003) for sale from reputable dealers on e-Bay.

Wizards of the Coast’s website confirms that 9th Edition was not printed in either language but does not say for earlier sets. Does anyone know—and hopefully have a source for—the last sets actually printed in those two languages?

—MJBurrage • TALK • 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

) 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am confident that the images are used appropriately, but some editors disagree, and one has written that "I will not retract the objection until all the images are removed". —Lowellian (reply) 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

These should be split into separate sections, as they are quite large right now. Is there an easy way to do this with tags? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually researching just that issue a week or so ago. It can be done via the older {{

Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Mixing footnotes and references has more on that issue. SnowFire

00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The 6-Card Image

I think we should consider updating this image. All but one of the cards are from 9th edition, not one is old bordered, and there are no instants. Also, if you want to properly represent each color and MTG in general, I'd remember what MTG.com did with the timecapsule question. With that said, what if we used these: Worship (same), Counterspell or Boomerang (probably old), Terror (old), Fireball (same), Llanowar Elves (old), and Icy Manipulator (same)?

This way you get more expansion symbols, a feel for all card types, and a feel for all colors. Clone doesn't really do blue the justice one of its stable instants would, and while the spider shows green's inability to fly, its mana production really outdoes that. As for terror, isn't that what you think of when you think black?

Just a suggestion. If this has been discussed before, don't hate me, kay? - Boss1000 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including a mix of new and old card faces is a good idea: it would give readers the impression that old and new card faces are intermixed, which simply isn't the case (except in Time Spiral, obviously). I feel that the Game Play section (where the image in question is found) should focus on the modern state of the game, with the new card face.

As to the specific cards shown, I like the current picture, but your suggestions seem fine too. My only issue with the cards you suggest is that there is only one creature, and it's a "utility" creature as opposed to a "combat" creature. Since creatures are the core of Magic (I can source this comment if you want me to, it's from WotC), I would like at least one "fatty" or combat creature to be shown. --Ashenai 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Updating the collage is fine, though I'd recommend proposing your ideas for card choices here first. However, I agree with Ashenai that they should all be modern cards from the core set and with the same frame. I'm not sure if now is the best time to think about updating it, since 10th edition will come out very soon and make 9th edition obsolete. Might be worthy of thinking about then, though.

Also, I don't see the benefit of standardizing on single spacing after a period. I don't want to get into the issue because it's a religious war, but double spacing after a sentence makes sentence detection much easier for readers looking at the edit box. And it doesn't matter at all, because HTML compresses all double spaces for the actual article. So no, there's no benefit to standardization as far as the actual article is concerned. SnowFire 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I know; I realized it didn't matter halfway through doing it, and I didn't want to stop. >_< I'm a double-spacer anyway, for the record.

I think it's only necessary to decide here before changing it. You're right about 10th edition, though; it can probably wait. You really don't think even one older card would be beneficial in the 6? I know we have the gambling one, but you're losing out on most of the history of the game here, unless you include one in the history section...? Anyway, yeah, let's wait. I agree that green should have a beefy creature, too. We'll see. - Boss1000 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are actually 4 cards in the article with older frames which should be fine. I also agree that if we are to change the six cards, lets do it once 10th is out :) --Mjrmtg 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an article for "The Colors of Magic"? I was just thinking that since the section is so long, we could shorten the gameplay section like wanted AND add more information on the colors, which I'm sure we could all do, by making it a separate article. - Boss1000 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's... a possibility, but I'd be skeptical. First off, one of the main reasons to split off an article is to "save space" in the main article (like with the Variant formats article). The colors of Magic are so fundamental to the game that I'd say pretty much all the current text needs to stay here. Now, it's possible that the colors of Magic deserve an article anyway that can go into more detail than the current one with added information... but I rather suspect it'd be a giant OR magnet, if the history of the colors section in this article is any guide. SnowFire 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Colour section is not very good, wishy washy, let alone alot of the descriptions are either old or opinion, I dont think even wizards have official desritpions of the colours. Should be split of fso as to improve the quality of this article.--203.87.127.18 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What's our policy on italizing the word "Magic"? I don't know if WOTC has one persay, but they always seem to bold it when they say it. If that means italizing for us, shouldn't the article title be the same? I went through the article and italized lots of Magic's, but what's the deal on that? - Boss1000 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Magic is a game that isn't completely absorbed into culture a la hopscotch or chess; therefore, it uses italics, just like Axis & Allies or Metroid. See

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) has more on that. SnowFire

21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Patent section

This isn't a huge deal, since as the main template says this topic is treated better somewhere else, but I don't think it's at all unwarranted to call the patent controversial, especially since it's a type of patent whose general existence at all has been controversial, ignoring anything specific to the WotC patent. It's not taking a stand on the issue; it's just recognizing that there have been some cases where it nearly got brought into court to see if it would hold up. Aldaron, you are correct that most patents are controversial, or at least most patents worth talking about... but so what? Most elements in chemistry are solids at room temperature and normal pressure, but articles on elements still mention this fact. SnowFire 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more like saying that the theory of evolution is "controversial" every time it is mentioned. Anyway, there's a separate article where this issue can be discussed, if it turns out to be a valid one. — Aldaron • T/C 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned exactly once in the article, and as it stands there's nothing indicating why this random fact is being brought up (not all patents are bad! Just saying "Wizards got granted a patent" should probably elicit a "So?"). Yes, there's a reference to another article - a short summary of that article is appropriate here. I agree that excessive detail would be bad, but we're talking one word with an explanatory sentence. Anyone else have any comment? I won't revert any more, but I still disagree here. SnowFire 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include one word, perhaps "misunderstood" is better than "controversial". Much of the patent is pretty narrow (for example, to infringe claim 1 you would have to rotate game components on every turn; claim 2 is only infringed by playing a trading card game with a hand limit and card reorientation). The broad claim that gets people excited (claim 3) is perfectly valid and covers (playing) the central (and real) innovation of Magic: the trading card game (just cards, BTW; the author of the article you cite is confused on this point). (And even that claim has some surprising limitations, for example, who is the infringer? It looks like it's the player himself -- hardly a lucrative target for litigation -- and moreover a player who plays with others, all of whom "construc[t] a library of a predetermined number of cards by examining and selecting cards from the player's pool of cards". So someone playing with a pre-consturcted deck, or playing with anyone playing with a pre-constructed deck would not infringe.) In a vacuum, "controversial" might be an acceptable word, but in the current all-patents-are bad climate (esp. here on Wikipedia) its connotations are clear and inappropriate. This is a perfectly valid (though surprisingly narrow) patent that attempts to capture a legitimate invention. — Aldaron • T/C 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The confusion in the patent section seems to be continuing. There's still a very strong implication in the current version that the patent is invalid, but nothing mentioned or cited supports this view. There are some confused and inaccurate statements about what the patent covers, and mention of some games that had similar elements, but no support for the argument that any game prior to the date the patent was filed anticipated the actual claims in Garfield's patent. — Aldaron • T/C 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WOTC applied for the Patent on 17 October 1995, in 1994 there where atleast7 CCG released including Spellfire and in 1995 before the application by WOTC atleast another 30 released (Listed on Wiki). USA Patents work on the first to invent, not first to file, like most of the rest of the world. This could make interesting court case, as I dont think many CCG would have document the day they first decided to "tap" a card etc etc. --203.87.127.18 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"a novel method of game play" is in the Abstract this description is by the people who prepared the Patent for WOTC. (A patent was granted to Wizards of the Coast in 1997 for "a novel method of game play") is misleading as the "a novel method of game play" was not the reason the Patent office granted the patent.--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also a lot of imprecise and confusing language regarding the patent and what it covers. I've change he section back to to something less POV. — Aldaron • T/C 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. Cheers.

DbishopNWF

19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Considerable "confusion" among detractors? That just reverses the problem by making the anti- side look like they're misguided. It's possible to understand the patent just fine and disagree with it- and "choosing some cards from a larger pool" means that they pretty much get all TCGs. My understanding is that practically all TCG makers do in fact pay WotC royalties. SnowFire 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually less than half pay WOTC (Cheaper option, thento face the threat of huge legal battle), the majority just say NO Thanks and dont pay.--203.87.127.18 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the language describing the patent. Among other things, WotC was not awarded a patent "for" tapping in isolation, but only as part of a set of rules covering a game with numerous elements in combination. I've also restored the quote that 203.87.127.18 was confused it's directly from the patent (which he really ought to read) and is more accurate than saying that the patent was awarded "for concepts". I also deleted the rambling and misleading sentences about the legal battle. The suit was about many things, mostly about misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and "tortuous interference with a business relationship": the central issue was that Nintendo ended a Pokémon-related relationship it had with WotC at about the same time it hired away some executives who WotC alleged had access to some of its trading-card-related trade secrets. A trial would almost certainly have focused on these issues and would not have been a test of the "validity" of the patent. — Aldaron • T/C 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aldron if you are going to quote somthing you have to reference it (Didnt you learn that at Uni,College,Shool?), especially for the reason stated above. The way it is represents is as a statement from the Patent Office.--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You should try goole.com and see the top 20 articles about the case, they ALL talk about case refering to "infringement of Patent" as the first or second part of the law suit. The case about WOTC trying to get money out of Nintendo for Pokemon breaching WOTC's patent on MTG. You say a trial "would not have been a test of the "validity" of the patent" well its part of WOTCs claim against Nintendo, so you are saying they would not have bought it up in court, even tho its in the legal papers? You assume they would forget about this part of the case, that if correct WOTC would make lots of money out of?--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fighting somthing out in court, throught all the courts is a pretty good way on deciding what the legal standing is! Or do you have a better way of deciding? Patent offices can't check things over 100% so if it seems not too bad they ok it and then leave it up the courts decide if people want to challenge it.--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Aldaron - You said a trial would almost certainly have focused on these issues" (Excluding Patent Infringement) where do get this "feeling" from? Lots of web refrences? It seems to be just an opinion which contradicts the news articles on the subject. --203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about if I quote a document supplied by the patents department?

"Beware of the Publicity Trap Don't go public with your invention until you file your patent application. Telling somone else about it can put your invention into the "public domain" and prevent you from getting a valid pattent. This could mean the end of your rights in the marketplace"

Magic the gathering was sold in stores for 2 years before the application was applied for! (With the first application being rejected). Putting somthing on the shelves of lots of stores is not the way to keep trade secret under wraps!--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about patents. — Aldaron • T/C 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Aldron well your the self appointed expert, thats why im asking your brilliant legal opion (You know what the court caswe would have been all about). Did you look on google and see what all the news articles said? and how they are wrong, cause you are right.--203.87.127.18 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've shared some of what I know, but you seem to have difficulty understanding it. This isn't a course in patents. If you're interested though, there are many excellent resources online. — Aldaron • T/C 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but what you know contradicts the news articles and the facts of the case.--203.87.127.18 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"a novel method of game play and game components that in one embodiment are in the form of trading cards" Under the rule Verifiability Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. This quote is not refereced, which it should be. --203.87.127.18 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the patent should have been referenced. I've added it. But you have to keep NPOV in mind when you write. Just saying "The patent should not have been granted" violates this rule, which is why we've been removing it. You would want to say "Some believe the patent should not have been granted," and then cite a source. There is already a sentence on this opposition, so I don't believe more is necessary. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for citing (I didn't know how to cite a patent and was hoping someone else would). The section looks good now, and we can only hope that

blocked will have taught him a lesson and he will stop his NPOV edit wars here and elsewhere—and his tirades on talk pages. — Aldaron • T/C

20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aldron, you still have to reference the quote from the patent (by a person employed to work on the patent). Guess you are not willing to supply any more of your legal opions :( I was under the impression Wiki was suppost to factual, but i guess you get enought people who want to cover up the truth and editing it out, then that becomes the official truth? :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

See above: Temporarily Insane cited the patent a while ago. — Aldaron • T/C 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, what i dont' get is why is pokemon trading card game claiming patents when magic is older? AND WotC owns them both. how does that work out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.205.160 (talk) 03:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this subject is discussed at Reliability noticeboard.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article, as with many other articles related to fictional settings, have at least a summary of references in pop culture? I'm sure Magic has not run out of these things; it's been around a long time. I think it would be great if someone got to work on that, or at least there should be a link to a separate article mentioning these references. Mission imaginable 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems really unlikely to me that there's enough non-trivial references to Magic out there. Sure, Magic is referenced within its own subculture and a few adjoining ones (pen & paper RPGs, for example), but it hasn't struck me as having a large impact elsewhere. We'd be stuck with "In episode 5.12 of Law & Order, some students in the cafeteria appear to be playing a card game similar to Magic." type references. SnowFire 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Although there is a large correlation between pen and paper gamiong and magic, magic is almost unheard of in the wider scheme of things. whenever I mention magic I get a blank stare, then when I explian it they're like "Is that based on pokemon?" despite the fact it far preceded it. anyways, I don't think its warranted. Avatar of Nothing 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing

"For a few years, some schools banned Magic games altogether from being played on school grounds."

Some schools? I think I have a pretty good idea where thoose schools were located, if were to believe the statement, and I'm not sure that's a correct representation of the global market for this card game. If we were to say that 1/10 of 1% is "some" schools (and by school I presume any classical educational facility) in a country, then considering the staggering amounts of schools in the world, in countries were magic cards exist (not necissarily sold), that would be a shitload of "some" schools. A factual number would be ALOT better here, than the word some.

"6 US and 5 UK and 1 bla bla school banned... bla bla and so on"

Also, I for one would like a reference, to either confirm my creeping suspicion or, with a lack of reference, show that this was not a widespread global phenomenon. Since it's mentioned in relation to the demon theme it would be nice to have that in the reference too. The schools could have banned it, if they did, for any number of reasons. ANTE for one.

A google attempt or two gave me nothing anyway.

213.141.89.53 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

banning reasons: stolen cards, ignores school work, disputes. it's liek pokemon tcg. it was banned because people keep on losing their cards, or stolen. generally not a big issue. satanic? i doubt it. unless you call merfolks satanic. also, ante is rare, and hardly played. it's like banned from most rules anyways. it's the player's disgression to play ante, which would be liek another games out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.205.160 (talk) 03:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. I remember reading an article in the newspaper about schools in the Chicago area banning magic because of the occult references on some of the cards around 1996 or so. Don't forget, back then you hard cards such as Unholy Strength (with a burning pentagram) and Demonic Tutor. For many years WOTC stopped printing creature types of Demon because of this heat. They replaced Demons with Horrors. However, I don't have a reference for this article since it was 10+ years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.199.69 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Readers and editors of this article might be interested in participating in the discussion on

) 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Alpha vs. Beta Black Lotus

In the old archive #3 there's still my post about the current values of Alpha and Beta. Why was one of the image captions reverted back to 'Beta Black Lotus', even though I already gave thorough reasoning why Alpha is more expensive in the modern market? Why was a justified change reverted? Anyone can check http://www.magictraders.com/pricelists/current-magic and see that nowadays Alpha is most of the time far more expensive than Beta. I'll change the caption again, and in case someone reverts it back, please state why you think - despite all the evidence to the contrary - that Beta Lotus is more expensive than Alpha Lotus. Thank you. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pure accident, probably. Feel free to change it back with my apologies, since I suspect that was my fault; every once in a while I check the difference between the version from a month or so ago, and revert some parts. That probably accidentally got caught up in that. Sorry. SnowFire 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#The_6-Card_Image 10th is there. So...? 200.255.9.38 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the that you add http://www.magicthegatheringstats.com to your external links. i recently made that site, and think its a good resource. If you agree, you might want to add 70.178.71.82 15:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)karthic

Please see

WP:EXT#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest before posting external links to a site that you have created --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴

18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty the magicthegatheringstats page is an EXTREMELY useful resource to anyone who plays magic. Not only does it have a fully searchable card database. But it has a HUGE video archive of all the recent tournaments that were played online. What could be better for someone researching the game than to actually watch the professionals in action play by play in realtime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.178.100.201 (talk)

We'll see how other editors feel about this. Also, I'd like to point out that I noticed a small link in the upper left directing users of your site to advocate the addition of your link to this page. They too would violate COI. Also, wikipedia is not a

linkfarm. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴

19:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, link removed --70.178.71.82 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)karthic

I do agree with the link and the self promotion, unfortunately as it is not my site i am unable to change those aspects. However i would like to point out that the page is a giant information repository, not a commercial page. Also I am very convinced that if someone were interesting in learning about the game nothing would tell it better than watching the profesionals play it step by step complete with << >> play and rewind. Reading the rules of a game can only go so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.178.100.201 (talk)

I suggest the inclusion of www.PlayMagic.com because it's a microsite put up recently by Wizards of the Coast themselves, and I've suggested the idea of including WotC's YouTube Channel but I'm not so sure about its validity (thus, the need for moderator).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.171.77.162 (talk)

This would actually be an official site, since it's run by Wizards, but in any case it's just a redirect to a site internal to the main Magic site. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any criteria or has there ever been for the un-official sites’ links to be listed here? I think all the links here are appropriate but some are not updated regularly or at all. I could think of several unofficial links that I believe should or could be added here. Specifically, I would like to add MTG Playersor www.mtgplayers.com to the unofficial links. The reasoning is because this site is attempting to document Magic the Gathering and is updated frequently. Although it is a relatively new site it is focused strictly on Magic the Gathering. It consist of a blog documenting Magic the Gathering history and current events, forums for discussing rulings, new sets, and anything in general related to Magic the Gathering, and an image gallery for use of card images and various other Magic related art. The sites purpose is to document Magic the Gathering, Past Present and Future and provide a place for players to meet. It seems fitting and appropriate to be added here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezlebubba (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2007

From what I see of your contributions, all you've done is add external links to pages. You've added this one several times (and been reverted), so to us it appears like you're spamming. That's why we've been removing it. As for why I think it shouldn't be there: as you said, it's a new site. I went there yesterday and saw nothing. I went there today, and now it's mostly nothing, and a number of the internal links

WP:EXT#Links normally to be avoided). --Temporarily Insane (talk

) 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Temporarily Insane:

If you went to the above mentioned site yesterday and saw nothing then you did not go to the correct site, if you went there and saw a bunch of external links, then again, wrong site. There is an RSS feed of external links Directly to Wizards Site for recent articles, but that is pretty much it. All links work, this site has been tested using ie 5.5, 6, 7, and Mozilla and it displays fine and all links work. I am not sure what you are seeing, as for my contributions, I am new here and to Wiki, but I plan on and will contribute here. Just getting my feet wet so to speak. I will also review the guidelines for external links. I won't add the site back as I am not a spammer and don't want to place any unwanted links, but do plan on contributing here nonetheless.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beezlebubba (talk • contribs).

After looking at the page briefly, and reading your description, why does this site offer that the wizards site does not already offer? You say it has links to recent articles, which are available through the archives. The wizards site also has forums on rulings, as well as places for new and old players to discuss other magic related items. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 15:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should see

WP:EXT#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴

15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of ante card image.

McGeddon removed the Jeweled Bird image awhile back with the explanation in his edit summary of:

rm unillustrative image; it's enough to explain ante in the article, without "here is a card with the word 'ante' on it"

I respectfully disagree. The existence of ante cards is barely covered at all currently, and expanding coverage is dicey in that this is a long article. Moreover, simply saying that Magic used to be played for ante doesn't quite really explain what the deal with the cards directly referencing ante was; how ante worked is not obvious at all. Were they additional cards to bet at the start of the game? Do you bid on special cards? Magic's ante system doesn't work much at all like the vast majority of other card games. The Jeweled Bird card gives a concrete example of the kind of things ante-interacting cards did, and is more than just a card with "Hey, this says ante on it!" If you want to suggest an alternative, go ahead, but I think that some sort of image definitely helps, and saves the article from another two sentences of explanatory text which would work worse than an example anyway. SnowFire 01:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Personally, I'd say that "There were a few cards with rules designed to interact with this gambling aspect, allowing replacements of cards up for ante, adding more cards to the ante, or even permanently trading cards in play." pretty much covered it already - we could maybe change "rules" to "card text", and mention that all the ante cards said to remove the card from your deck if not playing for ante (assuming they did; I played for ante back in the day, but don't remember).

An image is useful if it can easily illustrate something that text can't, but since the only relevant section of the card image is its text, I can't see that we need it. Particularly when a couple of sentences of explanatory text could cover all the various ante cards, where an image can only explain one card. --

McGeddon

17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they did. Beats me what the really early ante cards said, but the later ones did offer the "remove from the deck" clause. In any case, I see your point; I'd glossed over that half-sentence earlier and thought the explanation of ante was unusually brief. I'm still a fan of examples and think a sample card adds value. Anybody else have any thoughts? SnowFire 03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, since ante is never going to return and there are only 9 cards among the 9000 individual cards, not a lot should be given to ante. I don't think I've even seen an ante card, let alone played. Probably should just keep to the bare bones just in case someone has the off-chance to run into one. DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:DBishop ante is never coming back, and it's from and now and till forever it'll only be a footnote in the history of magic. It's not substanstial enought to take up space with a pic.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ante should not be forgotten. It was an unusual part of the game, and should not be put under a rug. Whether it warrants the inclusion of an image is another thing, but just because it's "old history" doesn't make it invalid. Let us not devolve into the generation who thinks that because something isn't on Google nor Wikipedia, that is does not exist. Onsetofyour (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I understand the Card Types can be found under the rules; why exclude it from this article? It seems to be a major aspect of the game -- I don't understand why some things are included, somethings are not. The 5 colors are mentioned, but not card types? And there are other questionable sections are could also be excluded (card types may be even more important for this article). If someone adds a section, be sure to include Planeswalker cards.

And does anyone think it's time to nominate this for Feature Article reviewing again? I think the TODO list is pretty much complete. Should be worth while to nominate this, see if it can make it to the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.139.3 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article too much recently, but there are two citation requests still pending (both statements are true, mind, but they do need cites). There are still also practically no references to actual books on the topic (which do exist) or to any academic analysis on Magic (which may or may not exist, but it would be a great help). The writing could use a general tightening, and also some of the web citations aren't formatted with {{cite web}}.

Don't get me wrong; this article would make FA under Wikipedia of 2005 standards, but probably not that of 2007. Not yet, at least. SnowFire 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are actually three right now (two in

New York Times article here that might be useful for the latter, but I don't have time right now to add it. --Temporarily Insane (talk

) 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Damage counters

I can find no pics of the small glass beads used for damage counters on Google! (mine are all blue but...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefoxicy (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WHy couldn't we put each of land cards on the page instead? Plains, Island, Mountain, Forest, and Swamp would do better to describe it to new players anyway due to the fact that it takes substantial time to learn how effects work and how they work. I think it would serve the page better to include the land cards and as for artifact... i got nothing. Kou Nurasaka 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, then we would lack images for cards of the colors themselves. Although I agree that a land card may help illustrate Magic better than an artifact, the other cards should stay. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:12.73.132.159 recently added a "Player Types" section to this article. The addition was extremely substantial and unsourced. I reverted to the previous edit as the change had not been discussed here and was unsourced.

I personally favor the addition of a "Player Psychoprofiles" section. The psychoprofiles have been discussed in length by Mark Rosewater in his Making Magic articles on mtg.com. In my experience, many players frequently use them. However, it is likely that such additions would be too lengthy to include in the main article. I would suggest creating a Magic: The Gathering player psychoprofiles article to cover the information and put only a summary here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be safe to say that the $20K Black Lotus was the most expensive trading card ever sold? I can think of no other TCG cards that would even come close (though obviously no where near the $2.3 million for the most expensive sports card). Note difference in "most expensive" and "most valuable" though, the one-shot promo cards (such as "1996 World Champion") are clearly more valuable, but never have been sold.--

02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have a long list of useful Magic links and was going to contribute them but given the edits and seeing other links being removed, what is the best way to suggest these? Or perhaps it is better to ask, on what basis were the current links selected? Sites like StarCity and Brainburst are obviously lacking, so that led me to believe that sites for-profit were not allowed, but then I see the Magic League (a for profit league, though profit is probably small) and the Mana Drain, a site now owned by StarCity. So I am confused and looking for clarification before I endeavor to expand on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.162.122 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this conversation was started by me. I figure registering would make me seem more legitimate rather than just some random linker. -- Cybrpnk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybrpnk (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a cleanup of the unofficial links is in order...

Far as I can see, StarCityGames and Brainburst ought to be fine, but they ought to be taken on a one-by-one basis. Go ahead and add them, I don't think they'll be removed. I'll go clean it up afterwards. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that on

) 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A MTG card index would be very large. I think linking them to the MTG product page[1]. That, in my opinion, would be best. Save time and be more efficient for the reader, after all then they would be able to see card art/etc. IvanTortuga (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wizards already has a searchable card index at http://gatherer.wizards.com which is what we use for the {{

mtgcard}} template. --Temporarily Insane (talk

) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro Image, the card back

There used to be a picture (Image:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg) of the back of a magic card as an intro to the article. In this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic:_The_Gathering&diff=182622873&oldid=182105709 it was speedy deleted cuz the image link was dead.... Why did the image link go dead, anyone know? I know it's copyrighted, but wizards has made allowances for other images, did this image not have that permission... I don't understand.

I really liked the intro pic... any chance we can get it back up.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has not been nominated for Featured Status for over 2 years... I think it's time to try again.... after we get an intro picture up!!!!!

Oppose/Support??

{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Support}}	= Support
{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Weak Support}}	= Weak Support
{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Weak Oppose}}	= Weak Oppose
{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Oppose}}	= Oppose
{{Subst:User:Fir0002/Neutral}}	= Neutral

Weak Oppose User:Sparkygravity I think it needs an intro picture--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the back-of-the-card image is easily replaced; just upload the version from Gatherer. There's been a recent trend toward requiring "fair use rationales" for every image, and whoever tagged that image failed to notify the talk page. Still, whatever; just upload it again with a rationale.

Second, this article is still not ready for Featured Status, as noted above at

) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone can upload the picture and take care of refs, I'll work on that combing. Will start tomorrow. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. I will say as one comment right out... I've been meaning to do a giant diff between the article as it is now and how it was six months ago and check the changes, but User:Marblespire basically rewrote the "Colors of Magic" section. I can't say I like the rewrite, and while not necessarily endorsing the older version as the best possible, I do think that the older version is better than what's there currently. Something to consider.

As for the refs, that's going to be the hardest part. Ideally, we want some amateur Magic historian who's read the various printed Magic books to put in their perspective for some non-WotC material. If anyone reading this talk page has read "Jonny Magic and the Card Shark Kids," "Deckade," etc., then help us out and add some perspective from there into the article! SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I also feel a little daunted by the outside wizards references. Mostly because news groups tend to stick with only the most basic outline when describing Magic, if the FA status of the article hinges on this, I don't think Magic will ever become a Featured article, and I don't think that's fair, considering the referenced content that is there, and the public interest in the game--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro and History have a first copyediting/cleanup pass. Anyone else who wants to can go work on 'em too. 'S probably a good idea, since I know I'll miss stuff. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have been meaning to help out here, and if you are guys really want to make a go of it I will do everything I can. How do feel about the interactions of some of the more feature writings of a site like Starcity and

WP:RS? SorryGuy  Talk 

07:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Update 6-Card Image (Part the deux)

I have an updated 6-card image made; I temp-hosted it here and here just for feedback or if it should be replaced. Reasoning for replacing image: - Current image contains no commons or enchantments. - This image contains all colors, rarities, and types found in base sets. - This image contains simpler cards. - Current image was made with 9th Edition, there has been discussion for an update to a 10ED image.

Thanks for any opinions. bradleyjx (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a PC(Politically Correct) problem with second image... not a big one because China blocks Wikipedia. However it is a social taboo too show images of skeletons in Chinese culture. I don't believe in censoring wikipedia at all. But if we could find or make a different image it would probably help Wikipedia-Chinese public relations.^{Go, Go Chinese Wikipedia!!!}--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Afflict would be a good alternative card - still black - still an instant. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some adjusting tonight :) bradleyjx (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good afternoon, everyone. I've been looking at this article for a while (and updating some of the images), and I personally think that this article is in the need for a minor structural update.

This is the way I see it now.

1. History
   1. Awards
2. Game play
   1. Deck construction
   2. The colors of Magic
   3. Variant rules
3. Organized play
   1. Constructed
   2. Limited
   3. Tournament structure
4. Product and marketing
5. Secondary market
6. Artwork
7. Storyline
8. Controversial aspects
   1. Expense
   2. Luck vs. skill
   3. Net decking
   4. Demonic themes
   5. Gambling
   6. Patent
9. Notes and references
10. See also
11. External links

I have a couple issues about this: - The information on formats is both not in a very organized location and is not comprehensive at all. - "The Colors of Magic" is large, could easily be larger and more comprehensive, but is hindered by being a subsection of an article. It seems better in it's own article. - Some small issues that I have with names and section listings...

The following would be a proposal I would have for adjusting the basic structure of this article.

1. History
   1. Awards
2. Game play
   1. Deck construction
3. Organized play
4. Card design & production
   1. Artwork
   2. Storyline
   3. Secondary market
5. Controversy
   1. Expense
   2. Luck
   3. Net decking
   4. Demonic themes
   5. Gambling
   6. Patent

Section 1 would be mostly the same.

Section 2 would be reduced slightly. I'm someone who feels that "Colors of Magic" either deserves to be in another article (also detailing how colors interact with each other) rather than being a large block of text in the main article. This update would also make a change to "Variant Rules" and it's associated article, by changing it to "Magic formats", changing the associated link to "Magic: the Gathering Formats" and setting up the section like that. This would take away my largest complaint with the current page, which is that information on formats is very scattered within the current article.

Section 3 would be affected by the changes in section 2, and would basically be an overview of the DCI and organized events across the world, linking to the DCI article.

Section 4 would be slightly adjusted, mostly by consolidating the previous sections 4/5/6/7 into one section, focusing on the physical cards themselves.

Section 5 would be more-or-less the same.

Any thoughts? opinions? Thanks. bradleyjx (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it. This article needs a cleanup and restructuring it would be a good start. Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Lotus is not the most expensive non promo card. Summer Magic Hurricane is more expensive, and even with that covered, you'll pay more for an Alpha one than a beta one. Which should it be changed to? YuanTi (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I see (checking MTGO at least), beta is still worth, on average, more than alpha. SM Hurricanes would more likely be called a misprint, and I'd say that the value of a misprint subset of a card should not affect the generally-accepted value of the card, in general.

By placing a card just named "Hurricane" and labeling it the most expensive card, the people looking to learn more about the game will think this crap rare out of Revised is worth hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

I feel that it would be better to leave Lotus in there, just because if you keep the question simple and don't worry about promos (1998 World Champion), misprints (blue Hurricane), or other oddities, then that is the most expensive card. bradleyjx (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Black Lotus is the traditionally more valued card. Hurricane might be more expensive in dollar collection, but I think focusing on it versuses Black Lotus constitutes a misdirection in how cards are valued by the gaming public. I'd be fine with a duel role where Black Lotus is toted as the most valuable magic card costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and then saying that the most expensive cards is actually a misprint of a card worth X dollars that can be purchased in other sets for Y cents.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One glaring omission from this article is the controversy that surrounded the Sixth Edition ruleset, which contained changes to core game mechanics (like the abolition of Interrupts and batch-ordering). The changes were perceived as a dumbing down of the game, putting it more in line with the introductory Portal game. This caused a lot of old-school community members to leave the game, such as Marcus Malden who posted an angry notice on his webpage stating as much. Sources and commentary should be easy to find from sites like TheDojo.com (now defunct) if you look it up through the Wayback machine. It should also be noted that these changes occurred near the height of the Pokemon CCG's popularity, adding more fuel to the idea that MTG was being redeveloped as a more lucrative children's game. I might get around to this myself someday, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case there were editors looking for something to do. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all the images in the article have conspicuous copyright notices, as if somebody is trying to tell us something. Either these images are fair use, which means we can use them; or they aren't, which means they should be removed. I'm not aware of any wiki guidelines endorsing the placement of copyright notices in articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can get around that easily, unless someone creates some vector images to replace 'em. Maybe we could convince WotC to let us create a public domain vector of the card back, but they'll want to keep card fronts close to home at least. If we want the copyright text gone, we'll have to take off the images themselves, and that's worse than the current problem in my opinion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant the copyright notices in the thumbnails, not on the images themselves. IANAL, but my understanding of fair use and how it applies to Wikipedia is that we don't need WotC's permission to use the images here, and placing copyright tags in the thumbnails of every image is unnecessary and goes beyond what any other article would be required to do. Would you (or anyone other than WotC) object to removal of the notices from the thumbnails? Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is from WotC's letter:

“

You agree to include in the copyright/legal text of the article the following: “Images used with permission of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” For every Image inserted in the article, insert the following text near the Image: “© Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Image used with permission.”

”

So it appears that copyright notices are appearing in the article in order to meet the specific permission that WotC has granted. However, these types of restricted permissions are not acceptable, see WP:Requesting copyright permission:

“

To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it.

”

In other words, since WotC did not give us license terms that were equivalent to GFDL, we cannot accept their permission. Instead, we can rely on the existing fair use rationale, which is required anyway for non-free content. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And now, I've sufficiently convinced myself that my proposed course of action is the correct one; I will be bold and simply make the changes. If anyone objects, we can of course discuss this further. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a good idea overall, but if no one complains it'll work. I'll shoot WotC an e-mail later today to see about a free vector of the card back at least. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I just submitted it, so I should have an answer some time tomorrow. Buisness hours and all that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't. And it won't let me right now. No idea why. I'll try again in a few hours, maybe it's temporary. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, skipped that entire process and sent a straight e-mail. Should hear from them this week, I guess. I'm on vacation right now, though, so news might not be forthcoming. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ham Pastrami: Some

would be nice here. I was the one who added the "by permission" notices, and I have zero affiliation with Wizards of the Coast, so please be careful about throwing around such accusations.

In any case, you are correct that "by permission" no longer counts as a valid image rationale on Wikipedia. (Just to be clear, it did at one time, though.) So the card images and the like are here ultimately due to a fair-use rationale, not a by-permission one. However, the fact that the images are fair use doesn't mean that they can't be by permission, too. Wizards has nicely offered Wikipedia usage of these images given an exceedingly minor condition; it's the difference between accepting a gift, and taking the item by force. There's certainly no "incivility" policy at Wikipedia that requires us to ignore the subject's polite requests; it's not like Wizards is asking that the controversy section be removed because their game is perfect or something. Putting up the copyright notice is merely a courtesy that in no way impacts the neutrality and quality of the article, which is what really matters.

As for getting a license that Wikipedia will accept... WotC will never, ever, ever give up rights to Magic card design into the public domain. To do so would practically invite competing products to ape Magic's design even more and allow copycat products to pretend to be Magic. Even ignoring that, it means that people could create commercial derivative works that say "Magic sucks!" or whatever without even need for the parody exemption. I could maybe see WotC granting a non-commercial use license (akin to

) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith goes both ways, SnowFire. I'm not exactly sure what you think I am accusing you of. I saw something that was incorrect and I took steps to fix it. Beyond that, I don't know why you're treating it like a personal attack. *shrug* Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either way it's at least worth a shot. My e-mail was forwarded on the 7th, and that's the last I've heard about it. Probably mired in some almost-never-checked inbox. I'll be doing some checking into this to see if we can create one from scratch, but I doubt it'd be useful. Anything that looks enough like a card will get hit with trademark infringement. Beyond which, I did ask if there's anything that could be left out for them to allow it. It'll probably be too much for it to still be useful, but again it's worth a shot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using the actual back of a card, use one of the early 'starter deck' boxes. It gives the look, but is not going to be subject to claims of potential finacial damage by WotCGundamsЯus (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It was becoming a linkfarm, so I have brought the external links here to develop consensus about which meet

) 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial sites

• Star City Games A well known card vendor and magic strategy site posting new articles every weekday
• Magic.TCGPlayer.com Formerly BrainBurst.com and is another site with regular strategy articles posted
• ManaNation A strategy site featuring a weekly video podcast about Magic the Gathering
• The Casual Player's Alliance Community for casual (non-tournament) play
• Crystal Keep Set information and official ruling summaries
• MagicCards.Info An alternative Magic card database
• Magic Deck Vortex A casual-themed website with an attached forum
• Magic-League A website for MTG-online playing and netdecking
• The Math of Magic An essay on the mathematics of Magic: The Gathering
• Magic YouTube Channel Wizards of the Coast's YouTube Channel for Magic: The Gathering
• EssentialMagic A large magic related site with forums, decks, articles, combos, etc

Please provide your comments:

• Delegate these links to {{
  dmoz}}. There's always going to be a (perhaps justifiably) long list of third-party sites and it's not Wikipedia's job to keep track of them. Ham Pastrami (talk
  ) 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.