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.

Archives

Nov 2002 - Dec 2004 Jan 2005 - Apr 2006 Aug 2006 - Feb 2007 Feb 2007 - Aug 2008 Dec 2008 - Jul 2010

Where is this movie? http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP:_Maxova_hra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.66.117 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why Magic is supposed to be for ages 13 and up? I'm thinking just how complex it is could be kinda difficult for younger players.-- Barkjon  complaints here! 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that somebody taught me the basics when Alpha came out. I think I was 8 or 10 at the time, and I understood every aspect of the game (the five colors, card types, how tap meant rotate). By the way, I have mild autism and maybe that's a factor in this (I've tried to teach at least 3 other people with no success) Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's what the wrapper says, but that's obviously not the explanation. Actually as far as I know Wizards knows that many kids under 13 play Magic and is very happy with that. The "13+" comes from the depiction of monstrosities, especially in black and some mild nudity, again especially in black. Just like the movies you may not advertise this for the broad audience as suitable for all ages, but if your parents will let their ten-year old watch an 13+ movie at home respectively let him/her play Magic at the kitchen table, because they think he/she is mature enough, then there is no problem. OdinFK (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thought Black was a contributing factor in the 13+ thing. Black illustrations can get pretty gruesome looking. Plus, the game is pretty dang complex - and the rules change often.-- Barkjon  complaints here! 20:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personnally, in addition to the above, i think it's also because Wizards didn't think everyone under thirteen would be able to play well, but you get that at mostt ages so I think it's moot... besides, i was tought by a ten year old. Jds500 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 13+ came up around the same time MTG was being criticized for printing things like 'demons' and just being a game concerning magic in general. Also you do things like kill elves etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.120.50 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for the age restriction? A lot of people try to change it to 12, adding a link to a source may finally stop this.--Narayan (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says so on any booster pack you can get your hands on. Shouldn't that be enough? Actually I don't think Wizards mentions it anywhere on their website, but if you really, really want to be sure try this and take a real good look at the lower right corner of the booster box. OdinFK (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see. The older booster packs i still have don't mention this, seems like a later addition to the cover? A pity nothing is mentioned about this on the mtg site. Thanks for clearing this out anyway!--Narayan (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, doesn't this information seem a little subjective, variable, and unencyclopedic, not to mention almost unsourcable? Conversation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Collectible_card_games#Infoboxes 2birds1stone (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that age recommendations are often printed right there on the box, that would be objective and sourceable. Someone changed the infobox age range to "6+" today - a random Amazon search backs that up to some extent, although the page says both "Suitable for ages 6+" and "Manufacturer recommended age: 3 years and up" (I guess the latter is just "physical cards are not safe for very small children"). Could someone who has one handy take a look at the back of a card box? --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, the Amazon image very clearly says "Age 13+" in the top right corner of the box, so I've no idea where they're getting their numbers. Also the IP who changed it to 6+ went on to change their edit to 6000+ and rename the game to the "Gathering of poo", so never mind. --McGeddon (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little strange for an infobox's contents. I'm not fully experienced in wiki matters but is this common and acceptable? It certainly doesn't read in an encyclopedic way. And (edit) I forgot to mention that the person adding it didn't bother to check if it directed to the literary or colloquial term. 98.111.220.242 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't played it, but I hang around enough people that play it that they sometimes forget I don't play. I don't see how the game requires any more common sense than any other. Actually, since the unabridged official rules book is over 200 pages or something like that, I'd say that it involves as much rules-lawyering as any RPG. And since it's a competative game, not a cooperative one, common sense would probably be ignored. I'll remove it, but since this isn't on my watchlist, I'm not gonna enforce that removal. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I play the game a lot and while I don't really agree to the rules-lawyering aspect, common sense certainly does not distinguish Magic from other games. Considering that the rules of the game and not those of reality determine what you can do, "common sense" might actually be detrimental to the successful playing of the game. OdinFK (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone readded this, I'll just add my voice to the consensus that it doesn't belong. "Common sense" is already an ill-defined term, and I don't really see what of "common sense" wouldn't be covered by "logic" anyway. I also pretty much agree with the other concerns that other editors have raised here. Croctotheface (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some ref links are dead or changed: 45, 16, 17 --Trollmen (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Cards From Before Alpha and Their dated 1991. I Know the Official Release Was in '93 but i think becaause there are multipule pre-alpha cards that it should be changed from 1993 to 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would these come from? Playtest cards don't really count. Also Magic cards show their copyright only since late 1994, so how would you know, that your cards are from 1991? OdinFK (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When they first introduced "Flying", They had a card called "Bog Imp". I couldent find one from 1991, But i have one right here. Bog imp 1/1 costs one black and one colourless with no flavour text. The only one i could find on the internet was one from 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The card you mention is actually from The Dark, Summer 94. "Flying was first introduced" with the introduction of the game, August 93... OdinFK (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all the reasons that have already been given why what Conkern says can't be true, cards didn't have copyright dates printed on them until 4th Edtion. 50.71.167.160 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that in the early days of this game, either in the rulebook or in an interview with Garfield, he said that the game was inspired by a card game he played that centered around baseball. I was never sure if he meant he played a game like MtG but centered around baseball or if he played a game with baseball cards with baseball stats to play a game. Never knowing quite what he meant fixed this fact in my head for all these years. Anyone else remember this? Anyone know what game he was talking about? Also, I think any game that inspired Magic, certainly deserves inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.146.69 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever heard of it and I have read quite a lot about this game. On the other hand it's quite obvious that Richard took some inspiration from trading cards. I mean it's no coincidence that these cards are called "Trading Cards" and Magic is a "Trading Card Game". But then Richard -as far as I know- is a bit of a scholar of games, so inspiration comes from all sort of games, but it's a too simplifying to just say "this comes from that and this from that game". Do you have any clue where this statement comes from? Maybe an early Duelist? The rulebook it is most definitely not, though. OdinFK (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Garfield's main inspiration for Magic was the game Cosmic Encounter, first published in 1977. Richard is quoted from various sources that he appreciated Encounters ability to use cards for "game-changing effects". You can use the references in the article for his quotes, or you can just google Richard Garfield and cosmic encounter, as he's listed in several online articles and blogs talking about Encounters influence in his designs at many conventions and game design symposiums. The baseball game that's circling in your head is probably the reference to an early Collectible Card Game that is mentioned in that article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random surfer - Yay, I can contribute to explaining what you are talking about. Drafting cards from booster packs was inspired by a baseball game (can't remember the name of it). In the baseball game you started the game by putting a random selection of cards on the table and taking turns picking players (cards). Since the playtesters knew the cards would be distributed in booster packs they made this work quicker by having each player open a booster pack and picking the cards at the same time. This is the reason drafting is called drafting; after the sports term. Can not remember where I've read this, so no source, sorry, but I suspect it was some article on magicthegathering.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.9.74 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this recent edit, has real encyclopedical value. The subject seems noteworthy, but is written like a player guide, not like something you would expect in an encyclopedia. Also, the sources given (playing experience etc.) are in fact a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. What does everybody think about this?--Narayan (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it could be interesting, but not as currently written. - IanCheesman (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if rewritten to have encyclopedic value, I don't think this belongs in the main article. It's way to detailed. Maybe could be used somewhere else, though. OdinFK (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, will we remove this part? Unless someane rewrites it and adds proper sources?--Narayan (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is appropriate to remove it. For easier future reference the removed passage was "Another aspect that a player must consider when constructing their deck is the mana curve.The mana curve is the distribution of mana costs from low to high within the deck. This is achieved by checking the converted mana costs of all the cards when choosing what creatures and spells are going to be used in the deck. In most cases, the lower the mana cost the faster the deck can swarm the field and gain control of the game flow. When the mana cost is higher, the opposite is true, the speed of the game tends to be slower as the player tries to build up the amount of usable mana to play the higher cost spells. Overall, a balance of low and high cost creatures is the ideal situation so that a player can have the defense they need with the low cost creatures while building up the amount of mana available to use the high cost creature or spells to overrun their opponent. The best way to check the mana curve of a deck is to take all the cards that the player wishes to use and lay them out by cost, going from left to right, low cost to high cost. A majority of spells should fall between the 0-3 cost range and branch out slowly into the 4-5+ mana cost range. This will ensure an even spread of mana usage throughout the game and keep the player in better standings to always be able to play a creature or spell when needed." OdinFK (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the history section i read: "Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993.", while the end of the very same paragraph reads: after two years of development Magic: The Gathering underwent a general release on 5 August 1993. Which makes me think about the source for that two year period? Is that two year period wrong, or the professor section, or doesn't the line about garfield being a professor matter at all?--Narayan (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says this, too: "He worked in his spare time with local volunteer playtesters to help refine the game during the 1993 school year." In my opinion that should sufficiently clear, actually I don't really get what you find displeasing about this paragraph. Anyway I guess I can dig up a source for the two-year-period if you distrust that statement. OdinFK (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shouldn't that date be 1991 then? If he was developing the game for 2 years? So, what i'm saying is, shouldn't the history paragraph be starting with "Development of Magic: The Gathering started in 1991"?--Narayan (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I guess chronological order makes sense. Although you might want to use just 'Magic' as product name. The 'The Gathering' part was added much later. The name of the game actually was Mana Clash at that point if I recall correctly. OdinFK (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good source with information about the early days of magic? Cause right now the first sentence: Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993. In his spare time he worked with local volunteer playtesters to help refine the game during the 1993 school year. reads like a step got skipped. Where did "the game" come from? I removed the two year-devolopment part, but it seems like there should be some more information to be inserted at the very beginning of this section.--Narayan (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly certain that at some point in the early 1990s, he posted to one of the rec.games.design newsgroups (rec.games.design.board?) about having developed the game and wondering what to do with it. The reason I remember it is that I went 'A game where you lose cards forever to someone because they play a card you've never heard of? Nah, it'll never sell' to myself. Obviously, I was wrong about that, but the only problem with proving my memory about the post is that I cannot find it in any online archive. Lovingboth (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The patent is invalid (as it was made public knowledge long before a patent was even applied for)and would lose in a court case if someone decided to copy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section about gameplay is unclear to me:

• Do the players know the cards on their opponent's hand?
• Do the players know the cards in their opponent's deck?
• Every player starts with a hand of seven cards. How were these seven cards chosen - randomly from the player's deck or deliberately?
• How does the game proceed - do players take turns? Take turns doing what?
• As game progresses, how does a player get new cards or discard cards? Do they always have seven cards on hand?

AxelBoldt (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. I'll try to add some more about basics such as these later today. To avoid article bloat, I'll also trim the subsection explaining the colors, which doesn't need to be as large as it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It could use tweaking and better integration, and perhaps some explicit references to pages in the rules, but that covers those points. Is there anything else you think should be included? lifebaka++ 17:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot better now, thanks! Still a few questions:

• I assume the initial 7 cards are drawn randomly from the player's own deck, right?
• The player whose turn it is plays the first card, right?
• "Playing a card" means following the instructions written on the card, and then discarding the card, is that correct?
• What if someone has fewer than 7 cards on hand? Do they draw a new card at that point?

Thanks again, AxelBoldt (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

• Yes. I tried to make that clear by stating that players shuffle their decks before playing. Should I add something more explicit?
• The current player (i.e. player whose turn it is) at least gets the chance to play things first. I've tried to make this more explicit here, but it feels awkward without going into it a bit deeper.
• This is covered in the third paragraph already. Some cards do what they say, then are discarded, while others stay in play, depending on card type.
• If a player has less than seven cards in hand, nothing special happens. They don't get to draw until they are back at seven or anything else. They just have fewer cards in hand (which may or may not be a good thing). I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning a lack of something.

I'm not going to be able to include the whole ruleset in the summary, or even enough that a player could learn off of it. Magic's rules are a bit too long to reasonably cover here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sub-section (if it stays it should be part of the Product and marketing section, not artwork), fails WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, the only reference is Mark Rosewater's article on the subject. This was never a significant media controversy (comparable to the D&D demonic controversy of the 70's), as far as I'm aware that would warrant inclusion in the main article. Browsing the category I don't see any appropriate sub-article that this should be merged into. Perhaps a single sentence in the marketing section noting the disappearance of demons (retaining the ref of course) would be appropriate. Crazynas ^t 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of Nov. 13th, 2011 this page reads like a product advertisement. Before retiring I was an educator and a long time ago one of my students played this game to the point of obsession. On one occasion I tried playing the game at a shop but that was the only time. Nevertheless I did learn a great deal about the game from that student who I will call P. "Lane" S. Walker or PW for short.

Despite being impoverished PW was constantly buying more cards even though he already owned several hundred of them. Apparently most of his best cards had expired somehow and he always needed to buy new ones. Besides buying a small package of cards every few days he was also saving up to buy an entire set for about $200. His old stock, even if never used, had almost no value so he generally had to pay cash for the new ones.

He tried to explain the rules but to me but they were illogical. Consider the text on the wiki page, ""Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence"...The Comprehensive Rules, a detailed rulebook, exists to clarify these conflicts."

This is contradictory, if the card text takes precedent over the "rules" then whatever the "Comprehensive Rules" contain is irrelevant because they are still rules.

There are also cases where the text on the card is unclear or ambiguous or just wrong. For example, consider the text on the Brown Ouphe which PW showed to me, "Counter target artifact ability requiring and activation cost. Play this ability as an interrupt." Which ability is "this ability"? In English it must be the ability referred to in the first sentence. The passage isn't even ambiguous but anyone who tries to play it that way will be in for a fight because everyone else "knows" it is the Ouphe's ability. Note that in the real world the card text rarely takes precedence.

The one and only time I played the game it cost about $20 to buy a deck and some booster packs. That seemed a lot for cards that would soon expire so I stopped there. More than anything else this game is about continuously extracting money from its players.68.149.247.130 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like the game. The article is peer-reviewed and (mostly) neutral, though. But because it doesn't reflect you negative feelings towards the game it reads like an advertisment to you. If you point to parts that you think are in conflict with WP:POV these parts will of course discussed and changed if the consensus is they are indeed POV. Right now your comment reads like a flame towards the game with no intent to improve the article, though. Regarding your more specific observations they are portrayed in a way that is misleading and in part just wrong. There are lots of old cards with enormous value for example. Also the rules work fine, no matter whether they seem illogical to you. OdinFK (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address the main criticism of the game -- that a good number of players spend a large number of money acquiring cards and that they seem to purchase these cards often. Perhaps this situation is true of all collectable games, but it certainly does seem to be a flaw of m:tg - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that "customers buy too much of it" is a "flaw" that every single product' would like to have? If anything, adding that "criticism" would be like adding advertising! "This game is too addictive, people keep buying it." SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, compared to other games, card games, and board games, m:tg, is different in having so many cards for sale. If I play Munchkin, Dominion, or Carcassonne, I don't need to buy any more cards or pieces to keep successfully playing the game for weeks, months, even years. But I have yet to meet a m:tg player who was satisfied with her deck for more than six months. There are many many games that are much cheaper to play than m:tg. Are they better than m:tg? Personal preference if you like tag, baseball, Ticket to Ride, or Yinsh better than m:tg; but, all those games, in my experience are cheaper to play. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about "cost of the hobby," sure, Magic has some expense, but like everything else there's a range. There are baseball fans who buy a glove, ball, & bat once and invest ~60 dollars lifetime. Then there are ones who buy season tickets and jerseys and other merchandise, and they can spend thousands of dollars. Ticket to Ride is a one-time purchase, sure, but you can buy new maps, get your America / Europe / Germany / Asia / etc. versions of the game - because it was successful, the company wants to sell more. Even something seemingly cheap like chess has fancy carved piece boards you can buy for hundreds of dollars, or professional coaching for thousands of dollars. Then there's hobbies like sailboat racing whose cost is merely "thousands of dollars a year" if you join a club and pay dues, and "hundreds of thousands of dollars" if you actually want to own and maintain your own boat. Is that a "criticism" of sailboat racing? I would propose it is not. Even if Magic was super-expensive, that's simply a fact, not a criticism. And there are plenty of people / kids on a budget who buy 50-100 dollars worth of cards and stop there. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is missing this common criticism. I read this page, in order to research this information, and I was surprised to find it completely missing. I am not surprised to see this discussion in the Talk section, and I hope that the MTG page will be more than a list of selling points. 71.235.10.190 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Going infinite" is a term, whose origins are unknown, that has been adapted by the Magic community to describe a particular lifestyle some Magic players live. "Going infinite" can be correlated to "Free-rolling", a commonly used poker term, in that the player has stopped putting their own money into the game and completely strived off of their play skills and tournament success to continue playing. For example: A player enters a tournament that originally cost them 500 dollars for all expenses, granted you have to start with some sort of bank roll, or funds, to begin this "infinite" lifestyle. After finishing the tournament, said player walks out with 1000 dollars, netting a profit of 500. The player then uses the 500 in winning to enter another tournament and continue to prosper off of successful tournament winnings. Magic: The Gathering has allowed very successful and skilled players to continue an "infinite" lifestyle with the establishment of Pro Players Club, set up at the Pro Tour London in 2005. The Pro Players Club awards these players with benefits, such as appearance fees, all expenses paid traveling and hotel stays, along with the opportunity to achieve a higher Pro Level status as the year of play progresses. The Pro Players Club goes up to level 8, where one gets all airfare and hotel stay paid for, along with up to 500 dollars for each appearance at weekly tournaments. One can accumulate upwards of ~50,000 in expenses and tournament appearance earnings throughout the year. The tide symbol is used as an approximate because airfare and hotel stays fluctuate all the time.

Few players are skilled enough to achieve the ability of "going infinite" because the credentials seem almost unattainable. Getting to level 8 is a milestone to say the least. Yuuya Watanabe is far and away the most consistent player in the game right now. He continues to be at the top of the standings in Pro Level play and is also the defending Player of the Year. Other players, such as Brian Kibler, Luis-Scott Vargas, Paulo Vito Damo de Rosa, and Jon Finkel are also some of the top players and the game and have seen level 8 before. Every Magic player that plays on the Pro level strives to become a level 8, and most will stop at nothing to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanx010 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the publisher as a source for this fact is probably a bad idea, but a quick google search for "first trading card game" provided to guinness world records links, note they use the word modern or patent . I think these would be better sources, but cannot access them at this time and think that "modern" or "patenet" are important to the discussion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, there have been recent modifications in the Colors section changing the term 'Pentagon of Colors' to 'Color Pie'. Both of these terms are correct, however the image that we are currently using depicts the 'Pentagon of Colors'. If people insist on using the 'Color Pie' terminology, then can someone provide a free image to use, otherwise I will (again) revert the recent change. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in talking about a "Color Pie" (if that's the most commonly used term for it) and just captioning the image with explanatory prose ("The five colors of Magic. Those adjacent to one another are "allied" and often have similar, complementary abilities."). --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with McGeddon. Nothing about the picture suggests the need for removal. But at the same time, nothing about the picture declares that it is a pentagon or a pie. Just recaption it. On a side note, both the pentagon and color pie should receive mentions as both have been used in the past by Magic's parent company. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are notable cards decided? Yea, there's some really good and unusual cards in that section of each expansion, but what's the criteria?Supernerd11 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply say that it is notable if it has a source noting it as such. Like if you have a website page devoted to talking about a certain card. Then it can be cited. Any notable card is eligible for deletion right now without being cited. Also these citations must be from a secondary source (meaning not from Wizards of the Coast). Leitmotiv (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally a tricky question. To understand a forest, it helps to talk about some specific trees in it, but which ones? I agree that secondary sources are ideally the best, although that is potentially still "too easy" a criterion. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the Mini Minotaur video and saw a parody Magic card, so I put it on this page. It was quickly reverted due to the fact that it's just a quick glimpse, but shouldn't that still be mentioned? Tobuscus is pretty well known, after all. (I'm not mad, just curious) Supernerd11 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still way too minor. There are entire Magic "celebs" like Brian Kibler who spend all their Internet time talking about Magic rather than some of it and Magic The Gathering fansites that aren't currently mentioned because there isn't enough room in the article. And for incidental mention, well, Day9, a StarCraft streamer, spent a few entire episodes talking about going to a Magic tourney, and even got a special invitation to a larger tournament from WotC, and that's merely spending "some" time on Magic! Never mind references that surely happened in the 1990s that have since been forgotten... a quick glimpse is nothing. It'd have to be somebody literally on the scale of Barack Obama to have a mere passing reference made by them be relevant enough to be mentioned in this article. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizards guys were also super stoked when they found out, that Peter Parker plays M:tG. Seriously, he has an Invasion poster in the Spider Man poster on the wall movie from 2002. (https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/askwizards/0908) In the end most of these things are just random bits of trivia, though... OdinFK (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks (pretty cool bit about Spider-Man by the way)Supernerd11 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mtgcard creates an external link. Was there a discussion somewhere why to use it even though it goes against the standard way external links are dealt with (=removed)? See what Wikipedia is not. I can see its usefullness (helps the reader to see the card immediately etc.) but the same could be said about many other external links, especially pictures. (A picture is worth a thousand words so why not include links to picture into the text of an article ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any discussion, but the fact that the {{mtgcard}} template even exists is probably a sign that it was agreed to do it. My question now is, how does one link to Black Lotus on Gatherer count as too many? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very first WP:EXT guidline states: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." That's why useful links are placed in the External Links section. I do not claim that one link is excessive (BTW there are 3 ext. links in the body of the article) but that it is/may be inappropriate (If I use the External Links Template terms (="Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references.") per WP:EXT. The guidleline says "normally" and there are exceptions, for example linking directly to government Bills, or patents. But they serve instead reference ("Aaccording to Bill No 7777,..."), whereas MTG template here, and any other pictures elsewhere, usually just illustrate the topic, and have, therefore, their own places to be, such as Gallery or Wikimedia Commons. So my question is what was the reasoning behind the cration of this template; where and how to use so that it does not conflict with WP:EXT. But perhaps this is not a place to ask. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason we don't actually use many card images is that they're all copyrighted. So we have to claim fair use on every single use of every single image, and that's a major obstacle. So replacing each instance of the template with an image is not a reasonable solution. It might be better to double check each template transclusion to make sure it's really necessary, because I bet we could get by without most of the times its used. lifebaka++ 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By no means did I suggest to replace these template links with external links to pictures! ;-) But I do as you say. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable third-party sources talking about Johnny and friends? All I can find are either not reliable enough or from Wizards, but they're a pretty important part of the game and should be added in. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I readded your section. We can use a primary source in this instance to cement the content. The third party content that CombatWombat is having a problem with, can now be added to flesh it out. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be removed, or perhaps moved. Psychographic profiles are very interesting and might be a worthy addition to a spin-off article called "Design of Magic: The Gathering" or the like, but it's simply too remote in relevance for a main "Magic" article. This article is already too long; this section will make it even longer. If we wanted to make it longer anyway, I'd think something like a fuller history of the game & set release history would be a more worthy inclusion than the profiles. (But to be clear, I'm not advocating a longer history section be included, I'm simply noting there are *lots* of Magic related things we could stuff in this article if we wanted.) SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the two best ways to promote an article to FA adding more refs and adding more information? Set release history is too bulky to go into here, that's why each block has its own page, but I'd think a fuller history would be good. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information isn't necessarily bad at this point. If we get enough new information, I would recommend a splitting of the article into two or more related articles. I say, let's continue on the path we are on, and once we have figured out how to split and have enough info to do so, we can. Here's an article on article size that may help. Magic Design, History, and Gameplay could be new articles that we expand upon if enough content and interest is provided. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is missing many citations, it has entire paragraphs where things are uncited. Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. As it stands, this is not meeting the GA criteria and is in danger of losing its status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with that, but what exactly do you mean with "Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts"? OdinFK (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote some parts of the storyline section. The aim was to integrate some parts on how Magic stories are used and how this has changed over the years. That also helps (I hope) to get at least a little bit away from the in-universe style that is always problematic in these kinds of things. On the other hand I didn't include any references so that brings its own problems. I think basically everything I have written has at some point been explained by Mark Rosewater in his column on dailymtg. If you think anything is particularly needing of reference, please annotate it and I will try to dig up a citation. However, as that one will probably come from MaRo it must be considered a primary source, so that helps only so much. But then this is a problem every article about M:tG is going to have to some extent... OdinFK (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the lead "Magic: The Gathering" is described as "the first collectible card game" The only sources that say that are the developer of the game, who has a vested interest in calling it that, and the seller of the game who has a monetary interest in calling it that. The only third party source describes it as "the first modern collectible card game". When we describe McDonald's hamburgers do we say "the best hamburgers in the world" because McDonald's marking material says that? Of course not. We look for third party sources for it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a close look at source number 4 which is a secondary source, it clearly states "FIRST." Do your research, get your bias off this page (because you also do this on the CCG page). Leitmotiv (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]