Template:Vital article

	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.

Masem just reverted an edit of mine with the justification "having a couple points does not hurt". I actually think it does. Why do we want to have multiple historical reference points for Black Lotus auctions? The article is quite bloated as it is. I don't really see how an arbitrary second reference point improves the quality of the article. The first gives the reader an idea of how expensive Magic cards can be, but how does the second auction add significant additional insights to the reader? OdinFK (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously having more than a couple record points would be overkill. However, one key difference between the two current ones is that the prior holder is an unsigned version, the new $500k one is signed, and that does have a factor in the pricing. I would agree that if, say, tomorrow, a new record for an unsigned Black Lotus (or any other of the banned 7 ) came along, we can replace the old unsigned record. --Masem (t) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signed vs unsigned is a fair point I suppose. It begs the question how much of the price can be attributed to the value of the signature of the late Chris Rush, but that is a real as well as unknown quantity. Maybe it would be possible to point out the general fact that some collectors value signatures and other dislike them, and that specifically in this context it is unclear in which way the signature, especially of a deceased artist, played a role in the price tag. OdinFK (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such a proposal would best be suited for Magic: The Gathering finance. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)

The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupernova (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but what would you like us to do? You can WP:BEBOLD and replace the image with a correct one, it's not hard to scan a corect MtG card... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to scan in a card, but I don't recommend it. We can use a digital version used by WotC under fair use. It will also be higher quality than any physical scan of a card. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to KingSupernova for spotting the incorrect image! However, looking at the current image their explanation is not quite correct. The image is not only slightly different in the "A" but also has a "TM" after "Deckmaster" which no printed card to my knowledge ever had. I just spotted this myself, but Dwedit also points it out on the image's talk page. Anyway, it seems to be true that this is a stock image that Wizards used for a time on their website, but it is certainly not optimal to be used in this way here. OdinFK (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I didn't notice the TM, which wasn't on Alt 4th cards. KingSupernova (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a correct version of the cardback. However it is not without its own flaws. Its centering is a little off, it's darker, and it's not an official image. I recommend finding a better one at some point. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so hard to find out how many booster packs have been sold of a particular TCG? You search "Best Selling" and it only gives you current popularity 2601:346:C201:60C0:B5F2:DF40:9BD3:BCF2 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is more suited to Talk:Collectible card game; and WP:NOTAFORUM (but I'll say, blame the companies for not releasing the data...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:

"The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."

As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. OdinFK (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may want to comment there, particularly regarding if anything is rescuable, perhaps by a merger here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on this - I've outlined specific areas that still need work (Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#AfD Cleanup 2021) so any help would be appreciated. I think the area that is going to be the most difficult to source is actually the History section. I found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone translate this image to English? It would be good for English article on Magic: The Gathering. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for image help added at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#Magic: The Gathering rules. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean convert the image? Jugador is player, mano is hand, cemeterio is graveyard, biblioteca is library, and en juego doesn't nicely translate, but I believe it just means Battlefield. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv Right, all we need is for someone to edit the image and change the text to English. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Done! Cleaned up the image a tiny smidge too. Tried to keep it faithful to the original as possible, including font. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]