Template:Vital article

	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 Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Magic: The Gathering GA‑class 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Board and table games GA‑class 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Gerrard Capashen should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Gerrard Capashen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the guilds are misspelled in the diagram on this page. Specifically:

• "Selesmija" should be "Selesnya"
• "Azarius" should be "Azorius"
• "Grimis" should be "Grixis"

I'd recommend that the diagram be changed or removed, particularly since there is no other reference to the guilds, shards, or wedges on the page.

Cosinity (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misspelled, it's just in German. That said, I agree it's not a useful picture, so removed it. SnowFire (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I copied over the information from the Writing and storyline section to the Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) article since that article needed improvement (per the MOS:INUNIVERSE tag and the 2016 AfD discussion). Given the size of this article (>123kB), it might be worth trimming the Writing and storyline section. I'm not the most familiar with the topic so I'm unsure which information should be prioritized in a smaller summary. Also, I think we should removed the table from Comics section since that information is in both the Multiverse article & the List of Magic: The Gathering novels. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem just reverted an edit of mine with the justification "having a couple points does not hurt". I actually think it does. Why do we want to have multiple historical reference points for Black Lotus auctions? The article is quite bloated as it is. I don't really see how an arbitrary second reference point improves the quality of the article. The first gives the reader an idea of how expensive Magic cards can be, but how does the second auction add significant additional insights to the reader? OdinFK (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously having more than a couple record points would be overkill. However, one key difference between the two current ones is that the prior holder is an unsigned version, the new $500k one is signed, and that does have a factor in the pricing. I would agree that if, say, tomorrow, a new record for an unsigned Black Lotus (or any other of the banned 7 ) came along, we can replace the old unsigned record. --Masem (t) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signed vs unsigned is a fair point I suppose. It begs the question how much of the price can be attributed to the value of the signature of the late Chris Rush, but that is a real as well as unknown quantity. Maybe it would be possible to point out the general fact that some collectors value signatures and other dislike them, and that specifically in this context it is unclear in which way the signature, especially of a deceased artist, played a role in the price tag. OdinFK (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such a proposal would best be suited for Magic: The Gathering finance. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)

The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.)