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.

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]

Just want to reinforce what SnowFire has said. Wikipedia is not a Blog, and the use of Controversy Sections is not something to just add to every article.Apriestofgix (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does read like a press release form the Owners Press Office, as do alot of articles as companies will spend the time and effort to make it so. The game has to change to make it interesting or people would get board. It has the basis of all card games, PAY TO WIN,(Simple supply and demand as in everything in life), but it also does involve alot of skill unlike alot of other games.--TobyWongly (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Patent and has it ever been tested in court? (likely to fail). There several games which contain parts that are clearly set out in the MTG Patent! --TobyWongly (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says the patent is likely to fail? Or on the patent in general? If you can find one, great, it could definitely be discussed more. Otherwise, we can't include it.

As a side comment, the courts have upheld FAR STUPIDER patents with completely proven "prior art" (Immersion v. Sony for one of many examples), so as a personal opinion, "likely to fail" is premature. But... neither of our opinions matters, what matters is what reliable sources say. SnowFire (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009010736/http://www.deutscherspielepreis.de/p060.php4 to http://www.deutscherspielepreis.de/p060.php4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://faculty.bschool.washington.edu/skotha/website/cases%20pdf/Wizards%20of%20the%20coast%201.4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417062722/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs to be there; WOTC, Channel Fireball, and The Judges program have issued statements and there is a history there. —Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2018‎ (UTC)

No, because it was a ludicrous astroturfed "controversy." WotC did make an official change, but it was a single press release which doesn't nearly rate a mention in the 25 year history of Magic. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Meta is getting figured out quickly (mainly due to the web and data), resulting in infrequent card bans. Some mentioning of this I think should be in the standard section? —Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2018‎ (UTC)

No, players whining about the metagame is as old as the hills and common to all games - the Hearthstone article would be endless whines about the meta or demands to nerf card XYZ for example. Maybe including something in the articles Kaladesh, etc. on cards that got banned is fine, though. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]