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.

In an unrelated topic, this paragraph: "For the first few years of its production, Magic: The Gathering featured a small number of cards with names or artwork with demonic or occultist themes, in 1995 the company elected to remove such references from the game. In 2002, believing that the depiction of demons was becoming less controversial and that the game had established itself sufficiently, Wizards of the Coast reversed this policy and resumed printing cards with "demon" in their names," should be moved to Reception. It fits the needs of that section and is less relevant to the section it is in now. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Leitmotiv (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I think that it is fine in the Marketing section, the way it reads right now it was a marketing decision, not one made because of (pre-existing) public reception... Although I think it should probably move up to paragraph two to make things a bit more chronological. Crazynas ^t 04:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it can work in Marketing, but since Reception exists, I think that is a better fit. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be moved to Reception as well. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception as received by the less than 1% of the population who most prob never have anything to do with such games anyway? Who cares?--Thelawlollol (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably useful to include as it is part of Magic's history and directly led to changes in art for cards (Unholy Strength) and other decisions not to include as many demons for years.gujamin (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth having a section on references to MTG in popular culture? For example, the TV situation comedy THE BIG BANG THEORY has a spoof of MTG where the characters play Mystic Warlords of Ka'a and throw down cards with crazy names, as a spoof of collector-card play. They refer to which card beats which, and say, "EVERYTHING beats Enchanted Bunny!" The game was started up for real as a free online game for a time. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source directly calls it a spoof of MTG (versus hundreds of other CCGs), it shouldn't be included here. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many other pages have such references, but is that actually recommended? Seems very much like trivia to me in most cases. I mean sure, if the next James Bond is named Magic: The Gathering Royal, but otherwise?

Is it really appropriate to start the Reception section with 'some consider the game very addictive ... cardboardcrack ...'? People have said that, but the people are not even named, and it sounds tabloid style. Also for the very addictive part the cited article is called 'Confessions of an MTGO addict'. MTGO is Magic Online so the article doesn't even apply a 100% to MTG as a whole.

The SCG article is from a guy who writes a few paragraphs about his addiction. Turns out many things are addictive if you like them. Most articles about potentially addictive things (coffee, chocolate, ...) don't have an addiction section, though. I would have no qualms having a section about addiction if there was scientific research on this topic, but this way it is just 'one man said...'.

Finally the USA Today article is from 2004. That is a 12 year old reference for a 22 year old game. I don't think it is justified to make the statement that Magic is called cardboard crack based on a reference that old, one that is mostly vague and all over the place in its description of the game.

I removed the first line of the section on these grounds. I do understand that Magic has been criticized and that there are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize Magic, but these criticism should be based on quality refences. OdinFK (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OdinFK: WP:WTW and WP:RS. The USA Today link should probably be re-added (even though it is old--we do a bad-enough job ensuring we've got a solid reception for continuing games), but the others don't look like they should be retained. --Izno (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I actually re-edited it in, but I did a bad job of annotating my edits, sorry. The next paragraph elaborated on the positive takeaways from the USA Today article. So I added a sentence about addiction to that, and re-instated the ref. Should be fine now. OdinFK (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is 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.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i miss a section that would sum up the downsides of this ongoing game and story writing process. mtg is never finished as it keeps adding new sequels to the multiverse storyline and keeps changing the cardgame, adding new rules, new card categories, new card layout designs,and changing retroactively the gameplay buy shifting the winning conditions. i am not arguing that the game does not have its merits, or that it would deserve a negative review, but i think that a section to summarize the criticizm would make the article more balanced. otherwise the article reads as an advertisment, bearing the one sided view of the product's developers and the company selling it. to help starting this section, my 2cents: the game's underlying principle is to make its customers feel powerful buy buying the newest cards that as a general rule beat the older ones (with the notable exception of an out of print set of 9 cards that arebanned from use in most official playing events and are practically non available). the chabce for winning the game is heavily influenced by the money spent for acquisition of stronger and rarer cards, that then soon become obsolete and outpowered by newly invented game mechanics and new cards from subsequent expansions. thres also a tendency of inflation, new rules and game mchanics introduced every few months that are not necessarily adding to the fun, but keep relatively new players in the buying cycle. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Re adding a criticism section: see Wikipedia:Criticism, in general these sections are not encouraged. They tend to be a magnet for random "person X said something bad about Y" drop-offs. Instead, integrate criticism throughout the article, and note that criticism means both good AND bad criticism.

Re your feelings on obsoleted cards: That's nice, but Wikipedia is not your blog. It is for summarizing notable published third-party opinions, not original research, or original opinions in this case. SnowFire (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]