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 Jul 2010 - Feb 2011

The history section is a messy timeline, jumping back and forth without always making it clear, as if it were written one fact at a time. Here is an example:

"Beginning in 2009 one revision of the core set and three expansions are released every year. While the essence of the game has always stayed the same, the rules of Magic have undergone three major revisions with the release of the Revised Edition in 1994, Classic Edition in 1999, and Magic 2010 in July 2009.[13] With the release of the Eighth Edition in 2003, Magic also received a major visual redesign."

Additionally, the sections immediately preceding and following that quote refer to 1996.

Here are the dates as presented in the article (in order mentioned): 1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2009, 1994, 1999, 2009, 2003, 1996, 2009, 2002, 2008, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.11 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (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]

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]

"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).

Since you are incapable of reading the source material, I will spell it out for you. Source no. 4 for the disputed item in question, states on page no. 2, third paragraph from the bottom, that Magic was "The first trading card game of its kind in the world." The source is secondary and is a peer reviewed article from the University of Washington. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And his source for that comment is? I'll give you a hint, it's Richard Garfield, the developer of the game, who as I have already said has a vested interest in calling it the first game. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, however, your argument that it may not be the first CCG has yet to be substantiated. Probably because you can't prove a negative. What we have here at this moment (and on the CCG page) is a peer reviewed article from a University which is in contrast to your statements above. As for your remark about Garfield, that sounds like you are doing original research. Leave the original research (that we can later cite) to the professionals. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying we should put in "Magic: The Gathering is the first game played with cards" because a negative cannot be proven? That is the worst logic I have ever heard. I don't need to prove anything, the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that it is the first collectible card game. The only WP:secondary WP:reliable source you have provided says it is the first *modern* collectible card game, a phrase I think we should use. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proving anything sir, I'm merely citing literature. The burden of proof is on you because of your bias in eliminating anything to the contrary. Your bias exposes your opinion and what you believe which has not been substantiated with any of your own sources. Where are the sources that say it is NOT the first CCG? There are none! As for the "modern" citation, or any other unrelated citation for that matter, you will get many conflicting reports and it is best to use judgment in comparing them. When most sources state "first", and the odd outlier exists stating something different, it may be that it is different because it is not fully researched. Using your own logic, where is Guinness's source of info? We don't know. What we do know, is that Guinness is a commercial product and not peer-reviewed like the University of Washington piece is, which casts some doubt on it. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the reliability of the sources that have an unqualified "first" they are all WP:PRIMARY sources, which if you would read that *policy*: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", in this case you are misusing them. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. " The one "reliable secondary source" you have qualifies the "first" with the word "modern", again, go back to my original statement, we should not rely on the developer or seller to accurately describe their own game. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the University piece makes it unqualified when compared say to the commercial source you keep referring to? Both are unclear as to where they get their information from, but one is peer-reviewed from a University and has other citations. Guinness offers zero citations. What about it makes it more credible? Where is the source stating that Magic is not the first? There is none, so by default, or until a better source comes along, I think the easiest solution is to leave it as is until a challenger comes along. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain that the Starcraft cheatcode references MTG and not the highlander series or movies? I'd like some actual reference for that.

The opening introduction

First published in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast, Magic was the first trading card game produced and it continues to thrive, with approximately twelve million players as of 2011.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Has too many references. I would recommend shortening the amount.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this has been contested too many times that all the references are needed. It should stay. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly has been contested? The number of players? That it was the first of its kind? That it continues to thrive? Surely not, that it is a TCG, right? Some of the references predate the 2011 of figure of 12 million so they either don't apply to that, or are outdated. Btw does this qualify as a credible, independent source? It gives a current number of abuot 20 million players. If it qualifies the number in the introduction should probably be updated. OdinFK (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That it is the first of its kind is in dispute. And one reference stating that it is, doesn't seem to be good enough. If you go back in the history you can see the edit wars over that one single claim. The Guardian is a secondary source so it will work fine to update the player count. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but nine references for that short, innocuous second sentence is ridiculous, and makes the opening paragraph look ugly and unwieldy. Just because some editors have a problem with the claim does not mean we need all nine. I have removed six of them, leaving the three I feel are the strongest. Everything stated by the sentence is still fully referenced in those three. --Ashenai (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I almost reverted. But I tell you what. I agree with you. It is ugly. I want to see the excess gone too. However, if this gets contested again, they're going back up. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the storyline section there is a part about major characters. Do we need that subsection? And if yes are there any criteria for inclusion?

Also shouldn't everything in the main Magic: The Gathering article be easily understandable to somebody without knowledge of the game? Take a look at the Jace description for example

"The blue Lorwyn Five Planeswalker from the plane of Vryn, Jace has visited a variety of planes, including Zendikar, Ravnica, and Lorwyn. While in his adopted home of Ravnica, he helped the dragon Niv-Mizzet and human (unknowingly a planeswalker) Ral Zarek solve the Implicit Maze, becoming a living, physical embodiment of the law of Ravnica, known as the Guildpact."

In just two sentences there are about a dozen terms that are unclear to somebody without knowledge of the game. On a side note, between all this fan lore Jace's main gist was forgotten: Jace is a telepath/mind mage. OdinFK (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that parts of this article need to be shortened and split-off as necessary. There is a lot of information in here that is not really necessary to understanding the game. I'm going to make some major edits to try and shorten things down. It really is very in-universe (especially the last half) and as the centerpiece article with many child articles it doesn't need this much. Crazynas ^t 20:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be mentioned as Patents are very important. It was made public knowledge before the patent was applied for (2 years before). Even tho the patent was given, it would not hold up due to it being made public knowledge before the patent application.--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how patents work. You need to provide a reliable source that says the patent is invalid. You can't just claim it. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]