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.

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]

Really that's not how patents work? Please explain or delete me asking you to explain. I do like all the other non referenced claims in the article, bet if I deleted them u would be upset for following the wiki rules...... LOL I like your baseless claim without reference! Please tell me about how the patent works.....--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hows this? theres a lot more if u want http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/#51d60485fe73

http://www.phoenixip.com.au/patents/keep-secret-public-disclosure-patent-validity/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RzZydAHtUoIC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=public+knowledge+invalidates+patents&source=bl&ots=yJGpMv_HSU&sig=RLD-eF2osH1kEHA-3ItX7KscMd4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmx-fs7OHKAhWBVZQKHSTBDTAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=public%20knowledge%20invalidates%20patents&f=false--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand about the request. You don't need generic sources about patents, you need specific sources about the Magic patents. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Again, do you have a source that WotC's patent has been declared invalid? The patent is valid unless a court or the patent office has declared otherwise. "Public knowledge" does not mean an inventor cannot patent their own invention afterwards. It means you can't patent something (which you did not invent) that is public knowledge, i.e. prior art. Your own sources back this up, as the 'date of invention' is not always the date of the patent filing. (Which was in 1995)

The article already covers the fact that some believe the claims in the patent are invalid, so there's nothing more to say here. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL if u patent it after its become public knowledge the patent wont stand up. I bet your a patent lawyer? DID U EVEN READ THE ARTICLES? The date its valid can not before the filling! WOW TRY READING! Well I'm off to delete things not referenced OUCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertttttttt (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic can be played by two or more players in various formats, the most common of which uses a deck of 60+ cards, either in person with printed cards or using a deck of virtual cards through the Internet-based Magic: The Gathering Online, on a smartphone or tablet, or other programs. Each game represents a battle between wizards known as "planeswalkers", who employ spells, artifacts, and creatures depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents. Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, the gameplay of Magic bears little similarity to pencil-and-paper adventure games, while having substantially more cards and more complex rules than many other card games. An organized tournament system and a community of professional Magic players has developed, as has a secondary market for Magic cards. Magic cards can be valuable due to their rarity and utility in gameplay. Often the prices of a single card can be anywhere from a few cents to a few hundred dollars, and in some instances thousands of dollars."

NO REFERENCE SHALL I DELETE IT FOR YOU? No no u want to apply rules absurdly one way and then ignore them when u want. This is why wiki blog is a joke--Ertttttttt (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the article lead, which summarizes the article that follows. WP:LEADLINK will explain to you why references aren't strictly required here. The details are expanded and referenced in the gameplay section. -- ferret (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are some out-of-date facts that should be changed because of the Oath of the Gatewatch release. This includes the addition of pure colorless mana, the current standard blocks, and the number of sets in a block (The last two are under Organized Play.) How should we go about this? Buscus 3 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to be "gone about". By all means just go ahead and get those corrections in there :) OdinFK (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an edit war going on the last few days over this, starting with an IP's POV/biased edits here: diff. This was reverted, then unreverted. I then trimmed most of the bias and unsourced parts out, leaving a core sourced sentence here: diff. This was reverted and edit warred over for a bit more and was ultimately removed. After a day or so (Enough time to try to dodge 3RR....), it was added back in what I view as an even more biased/POV edit than before, here: diff.

This new edit has some hefty NPOV issues. I do believe it's worthwhile to get something into the article about sexism in the MTG community, but we need quality sources and neutral text. The latest version is heavily leaning on low quality sources, has some prose/grammar issues, and a bit of OR in the last sentence, so I reverted it for now. Let's see some discussion and a consensus on what to add to the article. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging involved editors: @CombatWombat42 and Leitmotiv -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI CW42 was blocked by Sergecross73 for 3 days for edit warring on this article. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. No rush, this talk page will be here in 3 days. :) -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least starting up a discussion, something both of the main editors involved have still failed to do. I've fully protected the page for a week, so this doesn't continue again once a block ends. I can extend it if it starts up again, or remove it altogether if a consensus arises prior to a week happening. Just leave me a note on my talk page if you'd like any action on me regarding it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well not exactly @Sergecross73:, I did try to start a conversation on Combat's talk page, but it was called out as harassment. Since all those spurious charges were trumpeted against me, I've lost a little bit of interest during that time. But, I'm still willing to work things out.

As I stated in my edit notations before Combat disputed them, I reviewed the article and their usage of the term "misogyny" and it seems to be at odds with what they're describing, which is the over-sexualization of women on the cards - for those who don't know, misogyny means the "hatred of women." One case describes misogynistic playmats, but it's really hard to know what they're talking about without an example given, and it could easily be a misuse of the word again. That and the article refers to a lot of third party products (still unsure if they really mean mysogyny or something else altogether) but the wikistatement that was cited by this article specifically mentions the "cards." That's a world of difference, all things considered. I see that allegedly some cards were "altered" to depict rape, but that would also fall under a third party product since it was not originally authorized by the Wizards of the Coast. I suppose there is room for a mention somewhere about this, but it wouldn't be under Reception. It would fall under something probably new, like "Player Community" or something. But having that as the only item under Player Community would give undue weight to one point of view. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably ignore this misogyny crusade; it is an unsourced effort on the part of feminists to get their hooks into hobbies as consultants or commentators, similar to what Anita Sarkeesian did for video games. Her Kickstarter to produce videos under the name "Feminist Frequency" has underperformed and, although she collected $150,000, has announced she has quit after producing only six short videos on the issue. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In an unrelated topic, this paragraph: "For the first few years of its production, Magic: The Gathering featured a small number of cards with names or artwork with demonic or occultist themes, in 1995 the company elected to remove such references from the game. In 2002, believing that the depiction of demons was becoming less controversial and that the game had established itself sufficiently, Wizards of the Coast reversed this policy and resumed printing cards with "demon" in their names," should be moved to Reception. It fits the needs of that section and is less relevant to the section it is in now. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Leitmotiv (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I think that it is fine in the Marketing section, the way it reads right now it was a marketing decision, not one made because of (pre-existing) public reception... Although I think it should probably move up to paragraph two to make things a bit more chronological. Crazynas ^t 04:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it can work in Marketing, but since Reception exists, I think that is a better fit. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be moved to Reception as well. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://gama.org/OriginsAwards/tabid/2720/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth having a section on references to MTG in popular culture? For example, the TV situation comedy THE BIG BANG THEORY has a spoof of MTG where the characters play Mystic Warlords of Ka'a and throw down cards with crazy names, as a spoof of collector-card play. They refer to which card beats which, and say, "EVERYTHING beats Enchanted Bunny!" The game was started up for real as a free online game for a time. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source directly calls it a spoof of MTG (versus hundreds of other CCGs), it shouldn't be included here. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many other pages have such references, but is that actually recommended? Seems very much like trivia to me in most cases. I mean sure, if the next James Bond is named Magic: The Gathering Royal, but otherwise?

Is it really appropriate to start the Reception section with 'some consider the game very addictive ... cardboardcrack ...'? People have said that, but the people are not even named, and it sounds tabloid style. Also for the very addictive part the cited article is called 'Confessions of an MTGO addict'. MTGO is Magic Online so the article doesn't even apply a 100% to MTG as a whole.

The SCG article is from a guy who writes a few paragraphs about his addiction. Turns out many things are addictive if you like them. Most articles about potentially addictive things (coffee, chocolate, ...) don't have an addiction section, though. I would have no qualms having a section about addiction if there was scientific research on this topic, but this way it is just 'one man said...'.

Finally the USA Today article is from 2004. That is a 12 year old reference for a 22 year old game. I don't think it is justified to make the statement that Magic is called cardboard crack based on a reference that old, one that is mostly vague and all over the place in its description of the game.

I removed the first line of the section on these grounds. I do understand that Magic has been criticized and that there are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize Magic, but these criticism should be based on quality refences. OdinFK (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OdinFK: WP:WTW and WP:RS. The USA Today link should probably be re-added (even though it is old--we do a bad-enough job ensuring we've got a solid reception for continuing games), but the others don't look like they should be retained. --Izno (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I actually re-edited it in, but I did a bad job of annotating my edits, sorry. The next paragraph elaborated on the positive takeaways from the USA Today article. So I added a sentence about addiction to that, and re-instated the ref. Should be fine now. OdinFK (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]