Magic: The Gathering Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

• Archive1 - November 2002 through December 2004
• Archive2 - January 2005 through April 2006

---

There's been a steady stream of updates from random anonymous users lately that have included information of... somewhat tangential value. The problem is, this article has reached the point where it's already over-complete, if anything. Often times the added information is elsewhere or just not relevant enough for an encyclopedic summary of the topic. This article is already long (note the warning whenever you edit); we don't need to include every possible fact relating to the game. These can be spun-off into the sub-articles. I'm just posting this here because if you see me reverting out information shortly, it's not vandalism, it's trying to enforce concision. I think it's still possible to eventually get featured article status, but adding bloat isn't going to help.

One other issue: Can we use Gatherer's artwork? I believe that Wizards is okay with using the small versions of actual Magic cards (they get annoyed at the high-res, large versions because they can be used to print good-looking proxies, I assume). After all, practically every Magic site on the 'net uses them, especially the ones selling Magic cards, and WotC hasn't complained. Still, I'll send a formal request on off to WotC just to make sure. A Shivan Dragon or Serra Angel heading up the article would probably be more dramatic than just a card back. This sound reasonable? SnowFire 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and good luck with the much-needed slimming process! Alex (t) 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved the Notable People list off to Magic: The Gathering people, but that article is in need of some love. If someone more into the Pro Tour and the like than I am wants to have a go at that article, feel free. (Now that I think about it, I wonder if this even deserves a See Also in the Tourney organization section.... probably it's fine just on the bottom.) SnowFire 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFRG. MSC.jpg

File:WP MTG FInal!.jpg

File:MTGTank.jpg

File:NPOV 2.jpg

Dfrg.msc 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recent revert probably deserves a quick disclaimer; I'm not trying to censor their existence, but this article is long and needs chopping if anything, not info that is quite peripheral. Furthermore, 222.153.125.49's content was inserted in an almost advertising-esque way, what with the hinting about the alternatives being free and earning store credit (from what I recall, worthlessly pathetic amounts, but details). We already mention those websites at the bottom with comments on how they run leagues and the like. I also think that bringing it up in the "Expense" section is the wrong place - if we were to bring up ways around the Expense, we should really mention proxy cards before even getting into Apprentice & Magic Workstation.

My suggestion would be that if we really want to have this information in here, we should just write up an article on them (possibly for each one, or maybe a "Free Online Magic: the Gathering Clients" article). Then we can mention that article in See Also, or have a sentence mention and wiki-link them when talking about Magic Online. That seem reasonable, people who want the article to mention Apprentice & Magic Workstation more?

(Oh, and as for the comment on the Pro Tour, while there is definitely relevance to that in Product & Marketing, all that information is already in the article.) SnowFire 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that

"the popular series of tournaments adds an element of prestige and weight to the game by virtue of the large payouts and media coverage from within the community. The system is similar to the ones used in golf, tennis and other professional sports. The company publicizes good players who win frequently in order to create a "star" system, and examples to which other players to follow and aspire."

just transmits wizards point of view unchallenged and with no alternatives offfered, the motivations of Wizards in running tournaments cannot be judged only from their press releases. The economic reasons for running the pro tour as a marketing exercise is the most plausible reason for the support of organised play, Hasbro is a company with a responsibility to shareholders not a charity. Many people in my area resent the pro tour because they consider that they are paying for the trips overseas and big prize payouts through the high price of boosters.

The history of apprentice and wizards relationship with the program should definately be included.

"While less functional methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

ok so if your going to mention that the "less functional" methods exist then you really have to mention the cost difference between the programs. If you read this having never played online before you could easily take this sentance to mean that MTGO is strictly better.

Oh, and no need for 'perhaps' this is the smoothest, it cleary is as it was professionaly designed, is frequently updated with new functionality etc. that is not in dispute. An artificial attempt to offer NPOV in my opinion.

The prominence of magic online over the free alternantives in this article is shocking, just because it is the official program of the company.

Mayby the number of people who use the other programs should be looked into, emailing the main leagues for their number of members, before you decide how dominant MTGO is.

The use of proxies in casual play would be an important addition.

Is a paragraph on the rancored elf controversy going to be added?

I think the alternative options for online play should be briefly mentioned (cost and quality difference) and instead of an article for magic-online we should have one article for all online magic.

I want to contribute constructvely to this article

-) dont judge me because im just an IP address ;-)

No, it's great that you want to contribute. As to your points, I think it is mentioned that this is entirely a marketing tool for WotC. For example: The DCI runs the "Pro Tour" as a series of major tournaments to attract interest. And the comparison to tennis and so on makes it pretty clear that this is all a scheme to get gullible people to think that they, too, can be the next Kai Budde.

As for Apprentice and the like, again, my suggestion is to just make a new article. In the "See Also" section under Magic Video Games, just add Freeware Magic Clients or whatever you decide to title the article. Then you can go wild with the whole history of that sordid relationship in proper detail. Note all the sub-articles here; things like Magic's storyline is worthy of inclusion too, just not in the main article. That said, I don't think "less functional" is unfair; Apprentice & MWS are basically glorified chat programs that happen to let you have fake cards in front where you decide what they do. Adding rule support is a huge difference. As for "the smoothest interface," I don't think that's referring to Apprentice & MWS, but rather other CCG competitors. I haven't played the competitors online versions, so I can't comment, but it does sound a bit forced, I'll agree.

The dominance of Magic Online seems pretty unquestionable to me. There are ~700-2000 people on at any one time, as a reminder. I don't recall Apprentice IRC chatrooms being nearly that crowded, unless they've totally taken off in recent years. That said, it's kinda irrelevant; it's just that I think that Magic Online definitely "deserves" its own article.

Lastly, as for rancored elf, that might deserve to go some place (Wizards of the Coast article, maybe?), but definitely not here. WotC has gone to court many, many times before, so this is hardly a unique thing. We don't detail all the random disputes that WotC has had with artists that are irrelevnat to the game as a whole, for example. SnowFire 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i was qouting

"While less functional methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

because i tried adding

"While less functional #free# methods of online play exist, Magic: The Gathering Online has perhaps the smoothest online play component among online CCG front-ends."

which was taken away

i completely agree that MTGO is by far the 'best' in terms of quality but the price difference is not included in this comparison.

obviously they are less functional but if that is the only mention of them then people don't get the full picture of the competing strengths and weakness of the different ways to play online.

"Apprentice & MWS are basically glorified chat programs that happen to let you have fake cards in front where you decide what they do. Adding rule support is a huge difference

there have been improvements from the old apprentice days, Magic Workstation has support for automatic dowload of the pictures and on the servers they host there are always enough people playing to get a type 2 game.

dont forget the vast majority of real life games are played without rules support

the most recent magic-league master had a $400 store credit prize for 1st

to be honest i just think that people should be able to get a fair picture of the main MTG online programs, it would take just a small sentance to cover that alternatives exist that while having no rules support or multiplayer are 1. free (including unlimited drafts) 2. new sets available as soon as spoiler is released.(in comparison to delayed release of sets on MTGO)

i think that under 'expense' this could be included

im not saying more people use the free programs, just that they are a significant enough minority to warrent attention, just like an article on personal computing wouldnt ignore the apple mac, so a sentence about apprentice/magic workstation next to the magic online one for balance, perhaps a sentance under expense.

so under expense i propose something along the lines of;

Some players who wish to play without paying the considerable price of obtaining the cards use 'proxies', buy the gold borderd tournament decks, or use the free magic software clients. An alternative to the considerable expense of taking part in the sanctioned competiive formats is the tournaments run by the magic leagues with prize support.

The prizes offered by wizards are mentioned and not considered blatent advertising ;-)

Heh. Actually, I do consider them blatant advertising, and was highly tempted to remove the pathetic comments on the high prizes offered. However, since it seems I have my hands full trying to convince people such as yourself that I'm not the revert devil ;-), I eschewed doing so. I did rewrite the History section on Magic Online, as you probably noted.

I'm not sure I agree with adding the comment on proxies. The current section is not bad, but it still seems peripheral to the point on Expense, which the vast majority of people fight by building budget decks. You also have to consider that the Expense section is concentrated on tournaments. We already mention proxies in Type I. Expense is not nearly as large an issue in casual play, since you can simply play people with similar-powered decks. That said, if we must mention the free online games here, as I said before, we do need to mention proxies as well.

Anyway, I wrote up an article on Apprentice (software). I considered adding the link into the See Also section, except that by all rights I'd then have to add the Microprose Shandalar game and the others in the list at Magic: The Gathering video games. Again, it goes to show that quite significant games aren't mentioned at all in the article, and heck, Magic Online is only mentioned twice. Remember, encylopedic summary of the topic; this article is still too long. More information is great, but it's better to spread it out and make it easily linkable. Anyway, I'm still considering where to link it up. If anyone wants to improve the Apprentice article, please have a go. SnowFire 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just got to say Snowfire, i really appreciate your collaborative and engaging responses. My 'expenses' bit is pretty poorly written. I think that the various responses of players to the strange aspect of this game we love (that one can be more competitive just by paying more for better cards) is very important and budget deck are just one player response. The impact on the culture of the game from 'buying power' are very significant and in my area at least only half the resentment of netdecks is their unorginality, people often get very annoyed at being beaten by so called power rares like the infamouse jitte. Yes in many casual games especially with looser formats people can easily find matchs with decks well balanced against each other. But many 'casual spikes' love to play the latest tier one constructions against each other.

So basically the 'Expense' section is a good start but in my opinion could be longer to include non 'building on a budget' player responses such as proxies and freeware mtg clients (their seimi/quasi legal status and the intentionally very low res anti proxy gather included).

The Expense aspect in my opinion fundamentally distinguishs magic from other popular strategy games, not because it costs money but because money put in has in game implications. Compare magic to bridge, risk, chess etc. The cultural impications of mtg expense/secondary market are very important.

Sorry if this post rambles/repeats itself,thank you for your understanding and helpful responses to a very junior wikipedian.

Im back for more LOL i don't know how to do this myself or if its has previously been decided against, but what about links to www.magiclapoon.com and ugmadness.net? I think these comic mtg sites are very influentital (i could find the qoute from Adam Forsythe in a wizards.com article praising UGmadness)

Stated in summary of edit by SnowFire: "It is already implied in the article; see "history." It just isn't relevant enough to mention in the first sentence." We are only talking about three letters here, it not as if we are going into great detail listing every single paper he ever took. Hence it is hardly excessive to mention he has a PhD, when you also realise it was in combinatorial mathematics I think that provides a very interesting insight into the person who then created this game. So all in all those three letter do provide a very healthy benifit to cost ratio, probably much better than if any other three letters in the sentance. So if you are really feeling a deep need to take out three letters why not pick some others? Mathmo 22:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant, but I am utterly tickled by the fact that Garfield is a Math Ph.D and mention it as a way to sell the game- I was a Math major myself, you see. And I love combinatorics. There is no doubt that there is a relationship between combinatorics and shuffling cards.

That said. The reason it's not mentioned is because it isn't directly relevant to game design, and it's mentioned below in the History section anyway. As the edit summary of the person who originally removed it said (back on May 1st)- Removed Ph.D.; it is only appropriate to call someone doctor or reference their Ph.D. when discussing their work in that field; his combinatorial mathematics degree does not apply to game design. It's not an issue of efficiency; it's a matter of style. Do discussions of Woodrow Wilson's political career as governor of New Jersey and president of the United States refer to him as Prof. Wilson? Now, don't get me wrong, it is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the article. It is not quite proper to refer to him as such in the first sentence, however, for something unrelated. I'm sure interested users can scroll down a bit and see him becoming a professor, or click on his name for a biography.

Even given that, the reason I speedy reverted it is actually because you said PHD, not Ph.D. It looks really bad to have that right on top of the article. I reverted it to Ph.D for now, but that was to avoid an edit war. Please post here and continue the debate, because I'm still not sold. SnowFire 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "There is no doubt that there is a relationship between combinatorics and shuffling cards", then you quoted "it is only appropriate to call someone doctor or reference their Ph.D. when discussing their work in that field; his combinatorial mathematics degree does not apply to (card) game design". Do I need to explain further the contradiction that I see here?? Mathmo 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry about the all caps, that was an error... I DO KNOW I'M NOT MEANT TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS!!!111ONE ;p

And you said it YOURSELF. "Shuffling cards" and "playing a game" are not the same thing. Suppose Richard's degree was in computer science. Would this make his Ph.D relevant to articles on Magic Online, but not Magic? That would be silly; even if Computer Science underlies MTGO, the game is, well, a game. Even if combinatorics underlies card shuffling, which is but one element of MTG, card shuffling is not nearly the whole of the game. The "contradiction" is exactly what I was trying to draw attention to. SnowFire 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Magic the Gathering makes it what it is, we need to do more to display artworks and the legendary artists who made them.

Dfrg.msc 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The potential problem there would lie within the copywright of the artists. i mean hell i could scann the magic cards i got and put the pics up there, but are we allowed to that's the question. NeoDeGenero 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and get them to let use their images on Wikipedia. Someone with a good scanner so that when they respond we can have proof. That would get copyright hounds off our back and could help in getting the article to FA status.

"Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials available through this Site should be mailed to: Legal Department, Attn: Usage Permissions Request, Wizards of the Coast, Inc., P.O. Box 707, Renton, WA 98057."

Can't hurt to try right? Specifically it would be nice to be able to use the 5 colors and the tap symbol along with the permission to use images of cards freely (then we could have a card showing what a land is, a creature, etc.) Additional, since it's referring to the Wizards site as a whole, we could also expand on other products Wizards is responsible for. Of course, that's if they let us. Don't see why they wouldn't though.--SeizureDog 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, at least by email. They refered me to the Hasbro corporate office, which I considered going to, except then I remebered the 6-card spread already in the article and wondered if I'd been beaten to the punch. Also, by the time I got the response back, I was getting a bit exhausted at trying to improve the article- there's still a lot of nonsense updates in here as well as information repeated twice, not something we want in a concise, Featured Article. But I didn't want to do the reverts unless I had time to do the debates.

That said, I'll send that email off to Hasbro and see what they say. SnowFire 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There is no update. Wonder if I should send an inquiry to a different Hasbro email account, because this is taking suspiciously long for a response (aside from the automated "We've received your email" one). SnowFire 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit, "Setup time" should be listed as under 3 minutes instead of 5, as players have three minutes to shuffle and present their decks before a game begins. This is in accordance with DCI rules. ChocoCid 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "with permission" isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. It needs to be a free license, and there's a snowball's chance of that happening. Fair use is the best we can get here; fortunately there is definitely potential for that. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, does any body know if there is a magic the gathering wiki in english? Bud0011 04:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. I hate extra wikis, they draw focus away from the main articles on Wikipedia, which is where we should really focus our attention.--SeizureDog 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But i was thinking of one that could have categories on flanking, flying and dredge. Each card would be categoriezed based on it's abilities, type, etc and then you can easily see the other cards with the same idea. Bud0011 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what purpose, though? You can already search for "dredge" in Gatherer, and get a list of all of the Dredge cards. --Ashenai 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, i thought it would be a nice service to the magic community. a place where people can can look up info on an ability or creature type.....

There are better resources. In theory, a Magic wiki might be ok, but only in theory. We wouldn't get nearly enough people working on it to make it work well and it'd end up as another failed project.--SeizureDog 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed every unoffical site from the external links. It was becoming a mess of forums and podcasts. The guidelines state that we should only have ONE major fansite in the links. I think we need to discuss which sites should be linked to here. We should have no more than 5 links at most IMO. --SeizureDog 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

essential magic is a nice one. Bud0011 19:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very popular, and is, frankly, a pretty horrible site (IMO). I'm against adding it. --Ashenai 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the five most important links. I kept the Aussie and Brit sites as there were complaints about the article being too Americentric. True, the USA is more important than all other countries combined, but the Brits and Aussies can say the same thing, and this is the English language version of MTG on Wiki. MTGSalvation is the highest profile of the nonspam sites, and is a frequent source of information on upcoming sites on Wiki. The math and storyline links seemed the best of the rest. All the various Apprentice and other online versions should be spun off into a separate article.--Bedford 04:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brainburst is more high profile than MTGSalvation (of which I've never heard of).--SeizureDog 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, im new to this since ive just signed up, i use wikipedia everyday and i own one of the sites that was in the external links (mtgcast : a magic the gathering podcast network), I didnt add the link nor did i ask anyone to, it was added i guess by one of our listeners because i guess they thought we were relavent to the wiki, i guess this is a request for readmission from myself (i think this is the way it works), rather than just been 1 podcast we have 5 or 6 podcasts so only 1 link would be needed. im not complaining that the links were thinned out but we did get a lot of hits from the wiki (and not just robots) so i guess we were relavent to the wiki.. anyway this is probably the wrong way to do this but o well.. Quozt 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant as a method of advertisement. On a side note, your grammar makes me cringe. Please capitalize the word "I" and cut down on how many times you say "I guess".--SeizureDog 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no wikipedia is meant as a source of information, someone added a link as information I am requesting its placement back, as for my grammer, this is a "talk" section, there is no need to be so rude, I am not 100% sure how this works but one person does not have editoral rights over one article do they? 195.195.7.61 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SeizureDog, I think it is highly improper and abuse of your position to degrade fellow posters not on the basis of their argument, but on English proficiency. It is also unbelievably offense and xenocentric to state "True, the USA is more important than all other countries combined..". I also agree with the above poster that by definition of Wikipedia, one person should not exert editorial rights over an article and belittle fellow users. I will be contacting the Wikipedia adminstration regarding your comments and actions. Gust0208 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My position"? Since when did I have any position beyond basic user? And I didn't dismiss him because of his grammar, but because he said he "did get a lot of hits from the wiki". I think it pretty much sums up why he's wanting it put back. Even if it is in good faith, he is to bias (by nature) towards his own site and thus is not a good indicator as to if we should add the link back or not. And I might add that I don't think I was very rude, I said please after all. --SeizureDog 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"because he said he "did get a lot of hits from the wiki". I think it pretty much sums up why he's wanting it put back."

Kindly please do not copy half a sentance so its sounds like something else " so i guess we were relavent to the wiki.. " was the end of it, its not about the hits, we get hits from other places, its about the fact that someone added us, and we were removed without any discussion, arnt wiki's supposed to be a place where people discuss what information is suppose to be added? rather than someone just deleting a lot of links and hard work because he/she thinks its a bit messy?

Quozt 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"arnt wiki's supposed to be a place where people discuss what information is suppose to be added?" Bingo. They were added without discussion, so they were removed without discussion. And now we are having the discussion. --SeizureDog 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't go contacting the administrators immediately without talking it out first (see also WP:FAITH). SeizureDog hasn't tried to start an edit war or anything yet, and he's actively chatting in the talk page. If things go horribly wrong, sure, bring in the Cabal then, but this is waaaaaaay too early. Check out, say, Talk:Conservatism to see an example of the kind of mess that necessitates bringing in the admins, with looooooong drawn out talk page posts first and an active edit war in the article. This is small potatoes (and hopefully will stay that way!) SnowFire 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, thank you for the link and the comments. I get a little boiled up when reading offensive comments. I will keep everything on the Talk page here and keep everything as civil as possible. Gust0208 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will not be edit war since I have not added the link back, I was requesting that whoever removed check out the link and hopefully put it back, I know a lot of links are removed (as well as articles) because they are created by the owner as advertisements, but this wasnt, I only found out about the link from a link search in google, I felt SeizureDog's comment was personal, and having only just signed up to wikipedia and learning how to use the features as I go along, this was not a "welcome to wikipedia" more a grammer attack, yes I have trouble with grammer, but this is a discussion area not a published article.

but back to the topic of my original post, the link wasnt created by me, nor any of the podcasters on our network (as far as i know), the link was relevant, on topic, yes the site is quite new but its nothing to do with age, its to do with popularity, we have links from MTGSalvation, Magic Deck Vortex, MTGPlymoth, MTGYorkshire and quite a few other magic sites, we are the highest rated unoffical podcast on iTunes/podnova/yahoo podcasts for "magic the gathering" (when I last checked), I have to leave work now, but we can continue this banter when I get home. Quozt 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to discuss when everything looks nice. I apoligize if I came across as personal. But anyways, there are plenty of sites out there that are relevent and on topic for Magic, but we shouldn't include them all. We are not here to replace google, any further interest users have should be searched for elsewhere. --SeizureDog 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so how come we are only allowed to include the ones you say? I see gust added magiccards.info, an alterntive to gatherer which has a lot of extra features that gather has not and you removed that. I dont want to sound rude but you made you the boss of the links area?, if its your section thats fair enough, but if not they why not see if other people want it removed.

A) We don't need redundancy. B) You didn't discuss it. That's what this whole thing was about in the first place. If you notice, I myself never added any links. I am only making sure there is an agreement on which links to use and that people don't just go in and add anything they think would be nice. --SeizureDog 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B) You didn't discuss it. I "didn't discuss it because I didnt add it, you will notice that I never added any links, I was defending the link which pointed to me, and you made it personal,suggested that I only want it for advertising and suggested that I added the link myself, if I would have added the link for any reason I would have added a better description than "A Magic the gathering Podcast" --Quozt 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there were not too many links on there, magic is a big game and deserves to have a choice of sites listed, like it was before, if we look about you didnt want MTGSalvation listed because you had never heard of it, well that speaks for itself. Quozt 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what has an even bigger fanbase? Star Wars. Know how many external links they've got? 5. It's Wiki policy to keep the count down. --SeizureDog 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What know what else they have, [1] a section dedicated to fan sites why not move them there instead of deleting them?

:| um. "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name."--SeizureDog 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added today (and now see has been removed) a link to the most popular alternative magic the gathering card database, magiccards.info. It is used by a large number of players since it has a much more robust advanced search engine when compared to Gatherer. I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind its removal. It is likely much more widely used than a few of the other non-official links and is very useful to a large number of magic players. Gust0208 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think magiccards.info, mtgsalvation.com, starcitygames.com, brainburst.com are the most important ones, possibly phrexia.com would be a good one, but I'm not very familiar with that. ChocoCid 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) As an additional note, "The Math of Magic", while probably not notable, is a very nice analysis of probability as related to the game, and should probably stay. ChocoCid 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-ordered the Official links based on notabilty; I think we can all agree that the main, official site should go first. That said, to prevent silly wars over which unofficial site is the most notable, I think alphabetical order is the only fair way to go there. SnowFire 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick run-down through Alexa.

• wizards.com: 1,989
• tcgplayer.com: 16,010
• mtgsalvation.com: 47,523
• magiccards.info:79,991
• psi-soft.co.uk: 645,198
• mtgparadise.com: 1,742,689
• phyrexia.com: 2,262,473
• kibble.net: 6,669,817
• mtgcast.com: No data

What I think should NOT be on

• magiccards.info: Why the hell do we need two card search engines that are virtually indentical? Maybe really anal advanced players will use it because of one little feature, but if they are that hardcore then they'll know about it already. The external links section is for noobs who don't know about the game and want further reading. Not for the advanced players who aren't really reading the article because they already know what it's all about.
• mtgcast: No data rankings and only 506 google hits for "mtgcast". And that's without filtering for uniques. Sorry, but that is NOT a notable site to link to in the least.
• phrexia: last updated on NEW YEARS. Besides, better as a link at Magic: The Gathering storylines
• Math of magic: It was written six years ago and is very out of date. Only very experienced players would be able to understand the cards he's talking about.--SeizureDog 20:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Phyrexia: I haven't even gone to the site, ever, but we need some variety among sites, which means at least one site with heavy story-related content. If there's a better alternative, then great, but we shouldn't remove Phyrexia until we can replace it.

In defense of magiccards.info: I also have not been there for awhile, but they used to offer high-resolution scans of the cards larger than those from Gatherer. That said, I don't recall seeing them there last time I looked(edit: never mind, they're still there). I presume WotC did not like the ease of getting vaguely-good looking proxies printed from the site and politely asked them to stop. If they still have some, that would qualify as a reason to keep it listed (since there are savory reasons for wanting large versions of cards, such as for Photoshoppery).

Ok, that is just an AWFUL reason to want to keep it. You want to link to them because they break copyrights by using high-res images? And "they're good to photoshop" is no freaking reason to link to them from here. --SeizureDog 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I did not say that I supported keeping magiccards.info in the list! However, you were asking what possible reason there could be to use that as opposed to Gatherer. I gave you a very good one, even if may be a reason you and WotC doesn't like. The fact that such a reason exists doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for the list, though. You'll note I did not actually suggest keeping the link above (like I do for Math of Magic), but merely said something its defense. I'm neutral on the subject. (While I don't like proxies and breaking copyrights, that isn't grounds alone to not link. See Comparison of BitTorrent sites for an example of links to massive copyright vios.)

Seriously. I'm actually on your side for greatly shortening the list of links and the article, but jumping on people isn't going to get you allies. SnowFire 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expound some more on the topic. If you want a more legit reason, I almost exclusively play online. The real art in person is far more detailed than the Gatherer scans, which don't really do justice to the artist. MTGO is even worse. But I've often bought these cards perfectly legitimately on MTGO. Why shouldn't I be able to see good versions of the artwork I've paid for, if I don't misuse it (which I don't)?

Let me stress again that "being useful" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being on the list. If a website has no claim to fame, then yeah, don't bother. I'm saying that magiccards.info has a reason to exist and meets that standard, which you seem to think it doesn't even get that far. That said, it's entirely possible that in spite of that, it still isn't notable enough to be on the list. And I'm cool with that, should it pan out that it isn't worthy of inclusion. Lots of websites have valid arguments in their favor yet shouldn't be on the list. SnowFire 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Math of Magic: That article was written for people unfamiliar with Magic. Any Magic player, new or old, will have a step up over those people. A quick glance reveals a well-footnoted essay that explains each card at the bottom for those who don't know what Rolling Thunder is. Plus, it qualifies on novelty grounds as something interesting and different that isn't really covered in the article. Very strong keep vote from here. SnowFire 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you have representation of a Magic podcast? -- 207.237.26.115

1) Don't ever remove content from a talk page. Your excising of MTGSalvation was unwarrented and petty. 2) Why should a podcast be represented? Besides the official podcast they are nothing more than players' opinions on the game, which is something unencyclopedic. Nis81 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are MTG Paradise and Psi-soft Games even on this list? Psi-soft Games hasn't been updated since the beginning of May (and I think that's May 2005!). While I understand the desire to keep this from being Ameri-centric I think having two links to known non-American sites isn't going to make much of a difference. If we go down that route then why not have a link to a French MTG scene site, or a German scene, or a Russian scene? See where I'm going? And the unofficial links already there aren't even centered towards one country. MTGSalvation is the only other site that I would question, but it has been very important when it comes to spoilers and rumors. I wouldn't have any problem with it removed though. Nis81 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wiki page for Magic, which is why I never bothered getting a French or German site. I personally chose MTGParadise as it has been around for years. As for the Psi-soft one, if you can find a better one for the Brits, I say go ahead. Maybe just have the Aussie one, to represent the globalness, if I may invent a new word, and forget the Brit one.--Bedford 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 3 times at least I have seen that someone different has added MTGCast to the wiki and 3 times it has been removed... how come people are allowed to add other links but just not MTGCast?, we may be too new for Pagerank or Alexia (we have an alexia ranking now), I will continue to watch this topic but I dont want this getting personal.

--Quozt 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because podcasts really shouldn't be in here. Most podcasts are just forums for the podcast makers' opinions, which really shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia. If any podcast should be included it would be the WotC one.

I believe that the Article on the Storyline should be extended. I mean i love Magic and I feel that the books are a big part of it. There are no descriptions of the books and the lists dont show which sets go in order.

The good news is that WotC came through on their side of the deal, much like Italy beating the Czech Republic. I got this in the email recently:

---

Dear Mr. ((My name)):

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (“Wizards”) for permission to use Magic: The Gathering® trading card game images (the “Images”) in the Wikipedia article you are editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_the_gathering.

Wizards hereby grants you permission to use several, but no more than, twenty-four (24) Images solely in the Magic: The Gathering Wikipedia article. You agree to include in the copyright/legal text of the article the following: “Images used with permission of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” For every Image inserted in the article, insert the following text near the Image: “© Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Image used with permission.”

You also covenant and agree to ensure that in no event shall the Images be used in any obscene manner, or in any derogatory or disparaging fashion towards either a third party, its products, or services, or Wizards, its parent company, Hasbro, Inc., their affiliates, or their respective products or services.

Thank you, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly at (number).

Sincerely,

Andrew Smith

Assistant Brand Manager, Magic: The Gathering

---

Sounds fair enough to me. I really doubt we'll hit the 24 card limit, and the article isn't "derogatory" or "disparaging." Do note the limitation to just this article, though.

The bad news is, uh, on our side. Wikipedia seems to be determined to throw the ball game away; when I went to upload the image with the copyright issue nicely ironed out, I got to see the following gem on the licensing tag page:

Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies. They will be deleted.

• {{copyrighted}}—permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.

...

...

...

Presumably the policy was declared in a fit of madness brought on by entirely too much... sugar. It's okay to use "fair use" images where we don't have permission, but it's not okay to use images where we do have permission? Calling Mr. Kafka, please. I checked all the various Image Use pages on Wikipedia, but none of them actually bother explaining this policy. I mean, I can guess- mirrors would be annoyed that they can only take some of Wikipedia's content- but that's their problem, not ours. Not to mention, there's always alt text.

Anyway. I uploaded the images despite this, and grudgingly called them "fairer use." After all, I always thought that we really had fair use shots on any Magic card anyway- it's not like they aren't all right there on the WotC site and countless others, and they are lo-res. I stuck in the copyright information anyway as a courtesy, despite the fact that we are technically not using it with permission, because if we had permission that would be Bad. Note that I didn't quite tag the thumbnail description on each image; the request merely asked that the copyright be near each image, so I figure that Jeweled Bird & Lord of the Pit are near enough to each other that one copyright can cover 'em both.

Two important things are left for Featured Article status:

• Triple check italics use. Should the formats be italicized? The article currently is inconsistent, sometimes italicizing and sometimes not. Also, as a reminder, Magic gets to be italicized in every reference (but not Magic Online!).
• Start the ardruous process of getting more cites in there. Generally it shouldn't be hard to use cite-webs and the WotC site (or occasionally SCG), but it's going to be annoying work.

We also need to decide if the nice 6-card montage we'd been using before should be kept. I like it, but it is a bit small unless you click on it.

As a random other comment, now that the card back is elsewhere in the article, there's an uncomfortable amount of wasted space between the infobox and the table of contents at the beginning of the article. Anyone have any ideas on how to fill that? (Previously, the trivia on the card back helped a bit there). SnowFire 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Through some random browsing, I found this tag: Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS. Apparently, we need to have the evidence lodged at the PR department. I suppose this makes sense, don't want people just claiming that they got permission willy nilly. This way the proof is to be had.--SeizureDog 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wizards will never ever ever release the artwork under the GNU Free Documentation License. That License is very close to simply giving up copyright and releasing to the public domain; there'd be nothing to stop taking the image and using it for a "Hasbro sucks" page. Heck, people could even modify the images. WotC very rationally wants to control their art... and it seems that the "closed source / reserved rights must be destroyed" faction won the debate at Wikipedia. I don't think that there's any way around simply using them as fair use and fair use only. SnowFire 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind, I think I found what is supposed to be used. It seems that Template:Fair use in and Template:Withpermission are supposed to be used together in this case. --SeizureDog 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I was using Fairusein before, but I added the Withpermission template... not that it does that much. Still, nice to have. SnowFire 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{permissionandfairuse}} and the combination mentioned above work for this. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Jan 2005 through April 2006 (see archives at top of page) per request. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we revert to the old back, because Shivan Dragon is merely one creature?

The Ronin 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The card back, aside from not being particularly pretty, contains basically no information. However, seeing a Magic card tells volumes about what the game is and how it works. The card was not chosen lightly; it's an iconic and evocative card with two abilities that tell you something about how the game works, and some flavor text. In fact, I might suggest that given the choice between this long article and one picture of a Shivan Dragon card, the picture is better for 90% of all visitors of this article. It compactly tells more about the game better than paragraphs of explanation. SnowFire 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your disagreement. The infobox should contain the most iconic picture possible, and what's more iconic than the card back? Plus, the first image should generally contain the logo, which the obverse does not have. Besides, you act like there's no other pictures in the article. It's not like a person can't just scroll down a bit to see how the obverse side of the cards look like. --SeizureDog 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, though that cuts both ways; you can scroll down and see the card back. Plus, the opening logo more applies for things like corporations rather than specific games. *shrug* I think that the Dragon picture is far better as an initial blast of "This is Magic," but obviously if the community says otherwise, go ahead and change it. Anybody else have an opinion? SnowFire 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go with the card back logo we had. True, the dragon picture is nice, but as SeizureDog said, the picture should usually be something iconic, which in this case would be the back of the card, as its the most recognizable thing, which hasnt changed since the game began. DemonWeb 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:VANITY. Especially note these parts:

The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

That second rule may be a little extreme, but it's a good general rule (the exceptions are when Steven Hawking wants to help edit the article on Hawking radiation or the like). Now, to be honest, under the old page where we had a list of 20+ links, your article probably would have fit in fine. But we've been trying to slim that down to something more manageable. Plus, blog links are really bad, since they inherently self-promote. Does this newspaper have the article up in their online archives? That would be a much more suitable link, assuming the article is judged to be worthy of the list at all. SnowFire 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]