Magic: The Gathering has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 2, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted April 28, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 11, 2009 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 5, 2023. Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Games (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles Magic: The Gathering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Magic: The GatheringWikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringTemplate:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringMagic: The Gathering articles Board and table games High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:

"The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."

As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. OdinFK (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue ;D Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I come to revive this topic. In a certain degree, it's practically true the statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" because if you check clearly, everyone thinks that maybe Red and Green are the best in terms of strength and direct damage. But even Blue and White aren't less just because they are defense and healing counterparts. Blue and White also have their own way of attacking which is different from Red and Green (which is direct damage at the opponent's creatures and the opponent himself) that are also useful, such as the venom cards and emptying the deck to your opponent. I believe that this statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" should be somewhere explained thoroughly in the article because it's important. What do you guys think? Please reply! Thanks! 190.231.171.103 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a reply... 181.110.70.239 (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think about it "none of the colours are better than the rest" is a statement, that cannot be proven in this matter-of-fact way. Magic is too big, dynamic and diverse for such a statement to mean a whole lot. You might find statements such as "In Legacy and Vintage blue is generally considered to be the most powerful colour". This is about perception, not facts and this might be added somewhere, but it is probably outside the scope of this article here.

The most meaningful thing going this direction, that I can think of to put in this article, is something like "Magic designers strive to balance the power level of the colours. Due the inherent difficulty of this task perfect balance is rarely achieved, but which colour ends up being strongest shifts over time." You can probably find some remark of Mark Rosewater to that end. If you want it in the article you got to dig for yourself, though. OdinFK (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i recently made an image that describes the amount of common, uncommon, rare and mythic rare cards contained in Magic expansions. The italian section of Wikipedia has s rarity section that talks about these different rarities and the foil cards.

I'll leave the image here in case it can be useful to someone that wants to add that section here too.

Icovsworld (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Icovsworld: It seems the data are incorrect. For instance since Shards of Alara set there are no rare cards, but you can see in this article that this is not the case; there are other major errors in the image though. --Phyrexian ɸ 05:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably due some incorrect filtering i've done on the dataset, i didn't know about this other article with all the correct data, i'll use it and redo all the numbers correctly, thanks! Icovsworld (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it should be fine now! 93.41.120.168 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without information on how this chart is being constructed and what the data sources is, it fails WP:V and WP:RS for use on Enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those familiar with the game, collecting and playing or both, the game contains cards of vampires and angels. I’d like to see this game added to Category:Vampires in games and Category:Angels in popular culture Twillisjr (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be defining, per WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Can you demonstrate that sources regularly refer to the fact that M:TG contains vampires and angels? M:TG contains nearly every fantasy (and many scifi) tropes that exist. We could put a million categories for dragons, vampires, elves, dwarves, orcs, angels, gods, demons, goblins, on and on. They are not defining. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, both versions are used. We should standardize, and use just one version. I had never seen "life total" spelled with a hyphen before reading this article, so my initial impulse would be to use the version without the hyphen. Thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went ahead and standardized to "life total." Feel free to revert if there's a problem with this. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]