Magic: The Gathering was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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
Current status: Delisted 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.

Archives

Nov 2002 - Dec 2004 Jan 2005 - Apr 2006 Aug 2006 - Feb 2007 Feb 2007 - Aug 2008

It says nowhere in the article what "DECKMASTER" on the back of the card means, or where it came from. That info would be appreciated.

The actual size of a Magic card in customary units is (215⁄32 by 315⁄16 inches), not 2.5 by 3.5 inches.

Can someone provide a patent number and some more details about the terms of the patents? For example, licensing, etc? —Memotype::T 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Patent 5,662,332. It's listed on Collectible card game#Patent, which the "Patent" section includes a link to. Hope that helps. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add artists to this section unless they have an existing article on Wikipedia. Also, this discussion needs to be archived. Onsetofyour (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done on the archiving. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't artists be listed? If they don't have an article on Wikipedia, don't link them. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many artists to list comprehensively (at least in this article), and we need some sort of acid test to determine whose name makes the cut. This is a reasonably transparent system, and it bypasses unproductive debates about artist importance, which is largely subjective. As a bonus, it could lead to the creation of new (and fabulous) articles about MTG artists! JamesLucas (" " / +) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created an article List of Magic: The Gathering Artists and removed the individual artists from the main article. Also whether they have an article doesn't say that much about there notability. OdinFK (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many languages are the cards translated in? The page mentions only Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, some asian languages and, of course, English. --151.51.52.142 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Russian, Japanese, Chinese (simplified), and Korean (discontinued). OdinFK (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that most artifacts have been colorless throughout history, every one of the 4 most recent blocks (including the new one coming out in 10 days) have artifacts that are not colorless, and require colored mana to cast, just like other creatures, enchantments, etc.

Being an artifact does not denote colorlessness, just like being a land does not. It's the casting cost (and any rules text) that determine the color. With so many colored artifacts coming out this year and next, as well as them being represented for the past 3 years (although, admittedly, in very small numbers), I don't think we can say that artifact=colorless.

What do you all think? - IanCheesman (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible suggestion -

• Colorless spells and permanents exist as well in the game, most often in the form of Lands and Artifacts. Unlike the five colors, "colorless " does not have a specific personality or style of play. Often colorless permanents and spells are linked to one or more colors via their special abilities (such as Gruul War Plow), or more rarely, through their actual casting cost (such as Ghostfire).

If something like this meets approval, my suggestion would be slight changes to the Multi-colored paragraph as well, so all seven have same formatting. - IanCheesman (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help out, but do keep in mind the article is sorta' over-long already. Try not to add too much text. I'd suggest leading into it slightly better, though. How about

• Cards which are not one of the five colors are considered colorless, and most often appear in the form of Lands and Artifacts. Unlike the five colors, Colorless cards do not have a specific personality or style of play. Often colorless cards are linked to one or more colors via their abilities, or more rarely through their actual casting cost.

This also makes some minor changes and cuts out the card references (I've been trying to remove as many of them as possible, to remove excess text). One thing to try to keep in mind is to say "cards" instead of "permanents" and/or "spells" where possible. This will avoid confusion on the part of readers who aren't at all familiar with the Magic player jargon. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, sounds good to me! - IanCheesman (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was never formally nominated for a good article review. It was assessed as a good article without a review.

I did some pruning to the article but one thing that I came across that might just need to be cut down is the organized play section particularly "Tournament structure." A lot of it is good information, but I'm not sure it is good information that should stay in this article. Also it is the section that seems to contain the most potentially dating material as it refers to which sets are in the current formats even though they change every year. I think a quick explanation on constructed explaining the nature of formats:

They are each composed of specific groups of cards with Extended, standard, and block each containing a different percentage of the total card pool and rotating as new sets come out and that vintage and legacy don't limit the size of the card pool by set. In addition to restrictions on which groups of cards can be used some cards are banned for being too powerful, or occasionally for (in the case a select few older cards) interacting negatively with the current rules of the game.

In limited a person is presented a group of packaged cards which they have to use to build a deck at the event. Limited decks only have to be 40 cards (as opposed to 60) and can have any number of an individual card in a deck (as opposed to the usual limit of 4). The two main forms of limited are sealed, where a person is given multiple packs of cards to use as their total card pool and draft where a person is given fewer packs, but they are passed around the table of players, with each person picking cards from each pack, allowing a player to select a few cards from each of the participants packs. In both cases basic land cards can be obtained freely.

They're not elegant, but they cut out a lot of the stuff that most people don't have to know about. The only thing I can think I left out was talk of a sideboard. Other than this basically all that has to be said is that there is a good spectrum of tournaments ranging from casual ones and FNM's to the fact that there are PTQ's and other non-invitational tourneys like GPs and states/regionals, to invitationals like the pro tour and worlds which are top ranked and have sizable prizes (the actual invitational doesn't need to be mentioned at all). Anything else that can't fit in a short paragraph can probably be moved to the DCI page if necessary. Pwright329 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on everything you said. Probably some of the "Tournament Structure" part can be copied to The DCI.

The pruned version looks very good, too. I went over the article a few days ago, but not as thoroughly as you did. In the tournament spectrum I would add an extra sentence for Worlds. OdinFK (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]