Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 3

message: Fairies since the 9th edition set have been blue, and is well established since the Ravnica block
--Nappidyne 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It started in Urza's Legacy, when they decided to go anal on the color pie over flavor.  Since faeries fly, they got shifted to blue, even thro they are forest creatures and should have remained green.  That was retarded on Wizards part.--Bedford 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV --Khaim 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Fairies? 

message: There's been a steady stream of updates from random anonymous users lately that have included information of...  somewhat tangential value.  The problem is, this article has reached the point where it's already over-complete, if anything.  Often times the added information is elsewhere or just not relevant enough for an encyclopedic summary of the topic.  This article is already long (note the warning whenever you edit); we don't need to include every possible fact relating to the game.  These can be spun-off into the sub-articles.  I'm just posting this here because if you see me reverting out information shortly, it's not vandalism, it's trying to enforce concision.  I think it's still possible to eventually get featured article status, but adding bloat isn't going to help.
One other issue: Can we use Gatherer's artwork?  I believe that Wizards is okay with using the small versions of actual Magic cards (they get annoyed at the high-res, large versions because they can be used to print good-looking proxies, I assume).  After all, practically every Magic site on the 'net uses them, especially the ones selling Magic cards, and WotC hasn't complained.  Still, I'll send a formal request on off to WotC just to make sure.  A Shivan Dragon or Serra Angel heading up the article would probably be more dramatic than just a card back.  This sound reasonable? SnowFire 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, and good luck with the much-needed slimming process! Alex (t) 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates that Suck, and Official Artwork. 

message: My recent revert probably deserves a quick disclaimer; I'm not trying to censor their existence, but this article is long and needs chopping if anything, not info that is quite peripheral.  Furthermore, 222.153.125.49's content was inserted in an almost advertising-esque way, what with the hinting about the alternatives being free and earning store credit (from what I recall, worthlessly pathetic amounts, but details).  We already mention those websites at the bottom with comments on how they run leagues and the like.  I also think that bringing it up in the "Expense" section is the wrong place - if we were to bring up ways around the Expense, we should really mention proxy cards before even getting into Apprentice & Magic Workstation.
My suggestion would be that if we really want to have this information in here, we should just write up an article on them (possibly for each one, or maybe a "Free Online Magic: the Gathering Clients" article).  Then we can mention that article in See Also, or have a sentence mention and wiki-link them when talking about Magic Online.  That seem reasonable, people who want the article to mention Apprentice & Magic Workstation more?
(Oh, and as for the comment on the Pro Tour, while there is definitely relevance to that in Product & Marketing, all that information is already in the article.) SnowFire 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apprentice and Magic Workstation 

message: The Art of Magic the Gathering makes it what it is, we need to do more to display artworks and the legendary artists who made them.
Dfrg.msc 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The potential problem there would lie within the copywright of the artists. i mean hell i could scann the magic cards i got and put the pics up there, but are we allowed to that's the question. NeoDeGenero 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: The good news is that WotC came through on their side of the deal, much like Italy beating the Czech Republic.  I got this in the email recently:
---
Dear Mr. ((My name)):
Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (“Wizards”) for permission to use Magic: The Gathering® trading card game images (the “Images”) in the Wikipedia article you are editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_the_gathering.
Wizards hereby grants you permission to use several, but no more than, twenty-four (24) Images solely in the Magic: The Gathering Wikipedia article.  You agree to include in the copyright/legal text of the article the following: “Images used with permission of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”  For every Image inserted in the article, insert the following text near the Image: “© Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Image used with permission.”
You also covenant and agree to ensure that in no event shall the Images be used in any obscene manner, or in any derogatory or disparaging fashion towards either a third party, its products, or services, or Wizards, its parent company, Hasbro, Inc., their affiliates, or their respective products or services.
Thank you, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly at (number).
Sincerely,
Andrew Smith
Assistant Brand Manager, Magic: The Gathering
---
Sounds fair enough to me.  I really doubt we'll hit the 24 card limit, and the article isn't "derogatory" or "disparaging."  Do note the limitation to just this article, though.
The bad news is, uh, on our side.  Wikipedia seems to be determined to throw the ball game away; when I went to upload the image with the copyright issue nicely ironed out, I got to see the following gem on the licensing tag page:
Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies. They will be deleted.
*—permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.
...
...
...
Presumably the policy was declared in a fit of madness brought on by entirely too much...  sugar.  It's okay to use "fair use" images where we don't have permission, but it's not okay to use images where we do have permission?  Calling Mr. Kafka, please.  I checked all the various Image Use pages on Wikipedia, but none of them actually bother explaining this policy.  I mean, I can guess- mirrors would be annoyed that they can only take some of Wikipedia's content- but that's their problem, not ours.  Not to mention, there's always alt text.
Anyway.  I uploaded the images despite this, and grudgingly called them "fairer use."  After all, I always thought that we really had fair use shots on any Magic card anyway- it's not like they aren't all right there on the WotC site and countless others, and they are lo-res.  I stuck in the copyright information anyway as a courtesy, despite the fact that we are technically not using it with permission, because if we had permission that would be Bad.  Note that I didn't quite tag the thumbnail description on each image; the request merely asked that the copyright be near each image, so I figure that Jeweled Bird & Lord of the Pit are near enough to each other that one copyright can cover 'em both.
Two important things are left for Featured Article status:
* Triple check italics use.  Should the formats be italicized?  The article currently is inconsistent, sometimes italicizing and sometimes not.  Also, as a reminder, Magic gets to be italicized in every reference (but not Magic Online!).
* Start the ardruous process of getting more cites in there.  Generally it shouldn't be hard to use cite-webs and the WotC site (or occasionally SCG), but it's going to be annoying work. 
We also need to decide if the nice 6-card montage we'd been using before should be kept.  I like it, but it is a bit small unless you click on it.
As a random other comment, now that the card back is elsewhere in the article, there's an uncomfortable amount of wasted space between the infobox and the table of contents at the beginning of the article.  Anyone have any ideas on how to fill that?  (Previously, the trivia on the card back helped a bit there). SnowFire 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Through some random browsing, I found this tag: :Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS. Apparently, we need to have the evidence lodged at the PR department. I suppose this makes sense, don't want people just claiming that they got permission willy nilly. This way the proof is to be had.--SeizureDog 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wizards will never ever ever release the artwork under the GNU Free Documentation License.  That License is very close to simply giving up copyright and releasing to the public domain; there'd be nothing to stop taking the image and using it for a "Hasbro sucks" page.  Heck, people could even modify the images.  WotC very rationally wants to control their art...  and it seems that the "closed source / reserved rights must be destroyed" faction won the debate at Wikipedia.  I don't think that there's any way around simply using them as fair use and fair use only. SnowFire 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, nevermind, I think I found what is supposed to be used. It seems that Template:Fair use in and Template:Withpermission are supposed to be used together in this case. --SeizureDog 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice find.  I was using Fairusein before, but I added the Withpermission template...  not that it does that much.  Still, nice to have. SnowFire 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,  and the combination mentioned above work for this. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good news and bad news on Images. 

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

message: Shouldn't we revert to the old back, because Shivan Dragon is merely one creature?
The Ronin 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The card back, aside from not being particularly pretty, contains basically no information.  However, seeing a Magic card tells volumes about what the game is and how it works.  The card was not chosen lightly; it's an iconic and evocative card with two abilities that tell you something about how the game works, and some flavor text.  In fact, I might suggest that given the choice between this long article and one picture of a Shivan Dragon card, the picture is better for 90% of all visitors of this article.  It compactly tells more about the game better than paragraphs of explanation.  SnowFire 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your disagreement. The infobox should contain the most iconic picture possible, and what's more iconic than the card back? Plus, the first image should generally contain the logo, which the obverse does not have. Besides, you act like there's no other pictures in the article. It's not like a person can't just scroll down a bit to see how the obverse side of the cards look like. --SeizureDog 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Agree with Snowfire.  Having a representative or sample card image is very helpful, in my opinion.  As noted, the back of the card, while emblematic, doesn't really provide any information.  Seeing an actual card that would be used in play helps people to get a sense of context or provides information on what one of these cards would really look like.  I definitely favor having the Shivan Dragon over the card back as the article image. Slordak 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shivan Dragon

message: See: WP:VANITY.  Especially note these parts:
 
:The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)
:The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.
That second rule may be a little extreme, but it's a good general rule (the exceptions are when Steven Hawking wants to help edit the article on Hawking radiation or the like).  Now, to be honest, under the old page where we had a list of 20+ links, your article probably would have fit in fine.  But we've been trying to slim that down to something more manageable.  Plus, blog links are really bad, since they inherently self-promote.  Does this newspaper have the article up in their online archives?  That would be a much more suitable link, assuming the article is judged to be worthy of the list at all. SnowFire 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To J7731376 

message: What about card piracy, home made M:TG cards (Dante's Card Maker), computer games, alternate rules, competions, renowned cards ect?
Should some of these not be covered? 
User:Dfrg.msc 
:Card piracy is not much of an issue, really. Not that I can tell, at least; if you'd like to show that it is, be my guest. Likewise homemade cards. Shandalar might merit some mention, but then again the article is big enough as it is. Maybe a page about related products would be in order.
:Tournaments are discussed here, if you'll note. Actually there is probably more about them than there really needs to be. And renowned cards are entirely uninteresting to someone who doesn't play the game.
:In short, what this article actually needs is to be trimmed, not added to.
:--Khaim 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Aspects 

message: I dont think magic battlegrounds really deserves a link as much as say apprentice or workstation, battlegrounds may have been licensed by wizards but that doesnt justify it as having a significant level of importance to the mtg community. Battlegrounds is a completly different game to magic wheras apprentics and workstation are different ways of playing the same game. Games made based on movies/tv dont merit  links in other wikipedia articles, battlegrounds is at best a poor remake.
:I disagree entirely. This is the main page for Magic: the Gathering. If Battlegrounds has a page on Wikipedia, it should certainly be mentioned here. Importance is not the only factor in deciding what should be here. As far as being a "different game", so what? Should we link Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh from here because they're similar games? Of course not. Battlegrounds is set in the same world, its thematically linked, therefore its page is linked here. End of story.
:And by the way, games based on movies or TV shows do merit links in other Wikipedia articles. See: Indiana Jones, King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean, List of video games based on licensed properties.
:--Khaim 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Links 

message: Can someone please explain why my link to starciygames was removed? It's arguably the premier site for tournament strategy, with many of the game's best players on its writing staff. RyanEberhart 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a subset of users are violently opposed to linking to SCG.  In fairness, SCG is a commercial site, which Wikipedia is normally hesitant to link to.  There has to be a very good reason.  Now, I think SCG meets that higher standard due to its wealth of strategy and free news and information there.  However, support is not as universal as I'd like to try and "push" it through.  I'd estimate that editors are maybe 60-40 in favor of SCG being linked, which is not enough.  If this ever reached 75-25 (that is, 3 people in favor for every one opposing), then I'd be more willing to do a "this is the consensus, we're sticking it on."  See Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering/Archive2#StarCityGames for more on that (bearing in mind that doesn't show edit summaries; there have been several random helpful/spammy, depending on your point of view, IP address anons who notice the omission and have added SCG).  Note that this also means that if ANY commercial site gets on the External Links list, it has to be more notable than SCG somehow if we want to have consistency. SnowFire 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to SCG 

message: Kind of associated with the post above, but MTGOTraders has been relentlessly spamming the Magic: The Gathering Online article for the last three months (generally successfully, alas).  This has included shifting links within the article to imply they are the main/only website that sells on Magic Online (diff) as well as modifying valid links to official news releases to go to their site instead (see example diff).  For those kinds of tactics along with the commercial nature of the site, I submitted a blacklist request (though these things take some time to process).  That said, the person behind the account (User:Blackangel63, created after the IP address being used before was on its last warning) has seemingly offered an olive branch and "only" wants to add it to the External Links now.  Thoughts?
I personally think that to be consistent with the stand on SCG, a site with lots of valid content that happens to sell things, we need to also disallow MTGOTraders, a mainly commercial site that happens to also have some (admittedly useful) content.  That said, perhaps we want to weaken that stance (and possibly save edit wars and having to have a site software-blacklisted).  Figured that this is something requiring some input. SnowFire 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTGOTraders

message: Recently, Mike Long, Kai Budde and Jon Finkel have been proposed for deletion, as well as Magic: The Gathering people.  I noticed that the main article lacks a link to the latter.  Does anybody else think that would be worth moving back into this article, or keeping seperate? FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important MTG people

message: Marblespire and Cloveious, I reverted your changes.  For snow mana, I really don't think that's a topic of such great importance that it needs a paragraph in the main article any more than Rebels or Mishra's Workshop need to be mentioned.  There are tons of Magic concepts, but we need to focus on the heart of the matter with a clean overview.  Perhaps a one-sentence mention of snow in passing can be worked in later.  As for your comments Marblespire, myself I am very leery of any comments on games that mention "X is only for expert use" or "B is ."  There are only 5 colors in Magic, and saying things like "Blue is also the hardest to play well," while not necessarily false, demands a lot more clarification.  It's not something I'd leave hanging without a lot more chatting about the nature of the color wheel- perhaps appropriate if we were to fork off an article on the color wheel, but even still, it'd be very easy to dive into Original Research.
As a general note, I intend to go through the article again soon and try and add some cites and reverse some accumulated build-up of inconsistent edits.  I'm still not convinced by Netoholic's repeated reversion away from the other card images in the article, but I laid off fighting the war at the time; I'll probably put a few of those images back, seeing as there wasn't any further development of that debate from before.  Any objections/comments to this? SnowFire 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, hybrid mana gets its own paragraph and it was only released in Ravnica Block, Snow-covered cards and the idea of snow has existed a lot longer, and have been in development since the begining. --Cloveious 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ice Age, snow-covered lands didn't produce any different type of mana, and nothing was based off tapping them specially.  They were no different than, say, tribes in Onslaught- if you have a lot of snow covered lands, something good may happen, you can sacrifice them for special effects, etc.  Anyway, the section you inserted it into was on Magic's color-wheel, not mana in particular.  Hybrid is fundamentally different and ties into how you can cast spells of a specific color.  It was also used for an entire block, while "snow mana" was used for just one small set.  Suppose we have the sentence "Some mana has special restrictions or benefits, such as only being usable for artifacts or powering special "snow" cards."  Where should this go in the article?  This is not an article on Magic rules.  Consider that we don't talk about equipment, which was in considerably more sets.  Heck, we don't talk about enchant creatures / Auras directly, merely vaguely reference that they exist.  Those go in first before snow.  Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SnowFire 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements. 

message: Netoholic, in order to avoid a stupid edit war, I held off fighting this issue much before- in fact, I took a long break from this article entirely to avoid that stupidity.  I acquiesed to your picture removing for now because I'd posted a reply to your non-argument in favor of removal on the talk page and was waiting for a response.  Wikipedia civility guidelines generally prefer people hash out a tough topic on the talk page and then edit, rather than have a revert war going back and forth.  The fact that I stopped fighting the revert war before doesn't mean you'd "won."  Since it'd been awhile and you never replied, I decided to put back just one of the pictures as a compromise (and since others had raised concerns about the other one).  Wikipedia works on consensus, believe it or not- despite the fact that I've done a fair amount of editing lately, if the consensus disagreed with a part I preferred, I'd shrug and move on.  Can't always get your way.
All my arguments at Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#Recent_shifts. above still stand.  Your only argument was:
:"the "Jeweled Bird" image does not add anything to it. It doesn't illustrate "ante"."
"Does not add anything" is totally unhelpful as to why you think it should be removed.  It's pretty close to saying just "I don't like it."  I've already detailed why it does, in my opinion, "add something" and help illustrate ante (at least without making the text wordier).  Again, if you can suggest something better, than fine!  Heck, you might even convince me I'm wrong.  But you're going to have to explain more than "Does not add anything" backed by reverts. SnowFire 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeweled Bird image 

message: Well, first, I'd say it's because there was an AfD on it, and I've got to agree, RRD doesn't deserve its own article.  At most, Magic Variants get an article, and that's possibly a stretch.  Besides, I noticed that the section on Variants didn't mention anything about Draft variants.  Since RRD has been talked about on Wizards.com I think it's notable and verifiable enough to get a place, unless somebody has something else to add.
BTW, I just noticed, there's no mention of Rochester Draft anywhere in this article.  Is there a reason for that?  FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I added Reject Rare Draft 

message: While I believe that changing colour to color is complete rubbish, if warring breaks out as a result of the spelling, one decision is to set the spelling by the first primary author.  Which, by that precedent, is in fact color not colour.  
Like I said, this is complete rubbish that some people have to make an issue out of it.  Either way is spelled properly.  --myselfalso 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, this article should be in American English, primarily by virtue of precedent. Not to mention that it is a game made by a US company; the cards themselves, for example, use color and not colour. --Khaim 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs British English 

message: I have tried to reduce the game plan section to their bare mechanics by:
- removing or summarizing redundant information
- removing the common creature types for each color - not entirely useful, important, and plus, alot of types are shared between colors.
- sections referencing advanced players or techniques - typically, this information doesnt apply much to a community, such as excyclopedia readers, who are unaware of the game before this.
- moved alot of info, such as the list of Mark Roosewater's color articles, to references, as they dont directly contribute to the article, yet are good reinforcement to what has been said.
- a bunch of other edits I unfortunately cannot seem to remember in detail.
I hope it's a good first edit, and if it was a mistake for me to make it, I wont be offended if it gets reverted. Also, it seemed to have logged me out as I was editing, so it was actually I who performed it. 
Also, a question: is the enemy/allied color descriptions really necessary?Flashstorm 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to that last; I think the color pie is one of the more important aspects of the game, and the ally/enemy colors are crucial to that. --Khaim 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reduction to the Game Plan section 

message: One point in the article it says Magic has "over 8000" cards, later it says "over 8400".  While both could technically be true, it would probably be good to have the number consistant throughout the article.
:The current count for unique card names is 8640. But you're right, it could use some standardization.
--Khaim 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of cards in Magic 

message: The issue brought up before at Talk:Magic: The Gathering#MTGOTraders have resurfaced again.  The person who runs MTGOTraders put in a request to have MTGOTraders taken off the spam block list over at the Wikimedia website (see , and asked that I bring up the matter (I was the one who submitted the original blacklist request, after all).  Since there seems to be less confusion about how Wikipedia works now, it seems more likely that an external link on the MTGO article would be used as WP style rather than infusing links into the article text.
Anyway.  I will once again raise the issue: Do we want to open the door to commercial sites in the External Links?  As a reminder, Wikipedia:External links does say that "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a web directory."  The "no commercial" clause also allows for easy removal of any non-notable spammer site without having to debate the relative merits of the site.
However, I can't help but think that an EL section without starcitygames and its large backlog of free history and strategy is incomplete.  Wizards.com has linked to "classic" articles on SCG quite a few times.  And, despite being a commericial site, mtgotraders does offer some useful MTGO-specific information and was recently linked to from wizards.com.  If a very high bar is set, with it clear that any commerical site can only be added to EL in spite of its commericial nature, I think we could loosen the policy.  Any thoughts?  (No comments, like before, will probably mean status quo.)
--
Also, while I'm here, re: Uriel's recent edits.  To add "both of which are heavily marketed and aimed at a younger audience" to "Magic’s gross card sales have been surpassed in recent years..." makes it seem defensive for Magic; the implication is that Magic would have done just fine if these evil new games weren't so well marketed.  While this may be true, it isn't really the place for the article to say.  As for MTGO, while gambling is forbidden, that has more to do with avoiding getting sued or prosecuted in places where gambling is illegal; old ante cards simply aren't implemented.  I think the "forbidden on MTGO" phrasing implies that ante cards exist there, and just can't be used in sanctioned events. SnowFire 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of allowing commercial sites, but only those with extensive and free articles. SCG is probably okay, for example. That said, I also have no problem with people being overprotective of the external links section; the article is long enough, and having lots of external links doesn't help it any. --Khaim 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External linking / MTGOTraders redux. 

message: What are foils?  Its mentioned in the text, but i'm not sure what they are exactly.  Thanks.
:Foils are cards with a slightly reflective coating; they have a subtle silver appearance layered atop of the original card. (At least, that's what I think the text is referring to.) Mindmatrix 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Holofoil. --SeizureDog 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: : "However, Magic’s gross card sales have been surpassed in recent years by other modern CCGs, particularly by Japanese import games based on the Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! franchises."
I really highly doubt this. Magic has always been the biggest TCG of them all. As far as I know, Pokemon rather went bust around Fossil and secondary market crashed. And Yu-Gi-Oh! always was a bit of a joke; too many redundancies. Unless this is referring to a worldwide view (I'm not sure if they suddenly went major in Japan or something), I'm willing to bet Magic is still going strong.--SeizureDog 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic is still going strong, and this quote doens't deny that. I personally think this is true. However, you're right that it's unsourced, and until someone can find confirmation we'll keep it here. --Khaim 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Surpassed" is the key word here. I'm not denying that the others sell well, I just don't think they are selling more than Magic does.--SeizureDog 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not anywhere close to an expert on Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh, but my understanding is that they did surpass Magic's sales, and by a lot.  I'm not so sure about today, but I'm fairly sure that was true from 2000-2003 or so for Pokemon, and for 2003-(present?) for YGO.  When the GA re-review article came up before, I actually did try and find a cite for that statement.  Unfortunately, the sales figures don't seem to be officially released by Upper Deck for YGO.  It's privately held, so I can't even find a shareholder report.  I'm sure that the IRS could figure out their sales by extrapolating based on revenues, but that data isn't accessible to us easily; it has to be drawn from shipments to stores and so on.  As for Pokemon, well, that's just a blowout.   claims over 14 billion total Pokemon cards are in circulation, while searches for the total number of Magic cards yield "several billion" from WotC's crappy fact sheet circa 2004  (and Magic is older, and also didn't go bust after 2003).  Pokemon was probably selling five times as many cards as Magic during its heyday, at the very least.  A source from the Pokemon article  says that there have been 155 million units of Pokemon sold.  If we generously consider that every player bought three versions of Pokemon (probably incorrect, as many only played 1 or 2 then moved on?), then say that only 20% of fans who played a game bothered with the card game, we are left with ~10 million Pokemon TCG players.  And that's ignoring people who exclusively played the card game.  WotC only claims 6 million fans for Magic, and there's no particular verification behind that claim.  Now, none of this is direct enough to be a cite, but the inferred evidence is pretty strong.  Heck, if you want to see what's really popular, see what's being sold at non-gaming stores like supermarket vending machines, CVS counters, and at book stores.  I still see plenty of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards there, but very rarely any Magic cards (unlike 1995-96, when you could find Magic cards anywhere).  SnowFire 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced fact. 

message: The Black Lotus card pictured is from Unlimited (note the white border), whilst the caption under it refers to the Alpha Black Lotus, which would have a black border and rounded corners. --Random Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.225.210 (talk • contribs).
:Alpha cards (as well as all core sets) are white bordered. --Mjrmtg 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that is correct. Alpha and Beta were both black-bordered; Unlimited was white-bordered. --Khaim 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake - Alpha and Beta are black-bordered.  --Mjrmtg 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Why are all articles based on future blocks merged with articles which are based on the first set of the block? Time Spiral article is about both the set and the block; while Planar Chaos gets an article of its own. I don't think the names of the sets should determine where the articles go (it's only because Time Spiral is named after the block is it in the same article -- I believe there are other articles on Wiki which don't do this); there should be a separate article for the block, and then one for the large set named after the block --- 1 contains info about general storyline, info on the block as a whole; while the other is specifically about the first set of the block. Can someone take note of this in the future so that the articles are done right?
I think the people who catch up with making these articles are from an MTG Wikipedia Group (their job is to do articles on everything MTG). I don't know where to find them, so can someone from there take note of this request? 24.23.51.27 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future articles on future Blocks and Sets 

message: One of the image captions has outdated information. It says that Beta Black Lotus would be most expensive 'normal' card, even though the Alpha one has been more expensive for a few years now. This is due to a DCI policy change: You are now allowed to play a mix of Alpha cards and other cards in tournaments, if you use hard-ish and opaque sleeves. This equalizes the gameplay value for Alpha and Beta cards, so now only the actual printing frequency of these two sets determines the collector aspect value; Alpha had smaller print, so Alpha rares are more expensive now. I'm going to change the caption right away without discussion, since this is verifiable fact. 130.231.89.99 13:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta Black Lotus versus Alpha Black Lotus 

message: since i havent played this game in years, and never intensively anyway, i dont just wanna go ahead and edit. but shouldnt it mention 1. that for 'white' actually the color yellow is often used, such as on the back of the card, which color is much closer to yellow then it is to white. 2. that white is good with the use of enchantments as well as destroying them. 3. that green often uses or is good with mass attacks with lots of huge creatures. 4. i remember in our school we used to use a rule that you shuffled your land cards and all your other cards seperately and then mixed them together 1 by 2 or just about 1 by 2. if that rule has been used more often it should probably have a mention in "luck versus skill". Lygophile has spoken 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. This isn't really important, in my opinion. I would say this is just trivia about the way Magic cards are printed. 2-3. These would go into the color-specific section, but I'm not entirely sure whether it should. I'm pretty sure (not certain, since I didn't add that part) the color-specific information is mostly taken from MaRo's articles. 4. I'm not sure why you did this at your school (I've never even heard this "rule" before), but it is not used in very many places (and it's certainly not even legal to do this in tournaments), so that's why you don't see it mentioned. --Insane 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we used it to minimise the extreme luck factor of mana flood or drought, as is mentioned in the article. but it could very well not have been used anywhere else. isnt white enchantment specialists, just as blue is instant specialist?. Lygophile has spoken 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shouldnt this be added? 

message: Noticed this site was added just after my last edit to the page, "Magic-League A website for MTG-online playing / Netdecking". I'm tempted to remove it, but thought there is no harm in first checking with other more active players of magic than myself to see if this site ought to be kept or not. Mathmo Talk 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Magic Online wiki article? If so, it should be moved there. --Mjrmtg 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed it, not seeing much defense.  I also removed the Londes link; while I'd have no problem with Londes being there, our links section is getting near maximum length anyway, and it's a commercial site (and as mentioned before, if any commericial sites go up, SCG has priority.) SnowFire 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't Magic.TCGPlayer a commercial site as well, with all their emphasis on subscriber content? --Insane 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this link be included?