Talk:Magic: The Gathering
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magic: The Gathering article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jace Beleren was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 February 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Magic: The Gathering. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Planeswalker was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Magic: The Gathering. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Magic: The Gathering:
Priority 5
|
Incorrect card back
The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)
The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupernova (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, but what would you like us to do? You can WP:BEBOLD and replace the image with a correct one, it's not hard to scan a corect MtG card... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is easy to scan in a card, but I don't recommend it. We can use a digital version used by WotC under fair use. It will also be higher quality than any physical scan of a card. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Kudos to KingSupernova for spotting the incorrect image! However, looking at the current image their explanation is not quite correct. The image is not only slightly different in the "A" but also has a "TM" after "Deckmaster" which no printed card to my knowledge ever had. I just spotted this myself, but Dwedit also points it out on the image's talk page. Anyway, it seems to be true that this is a stock image that Wizards used for a time on their website, but it is certainly not optimal to be used in this way here. OdinFK (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're right! I didn't notice the TM, which wasn't on Alt 4th cards. KingSupernova (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I uploaded a correct version of the cardback. However it is not without its own flaws. Its centering is a little off, it's darker, and it's not an official image. I recommend finding a better one at some point. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
None of the colors is better than the rest
Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:
- "The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."
- As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. OdinFK (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Blue ;D Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to comment there, particularly regarding if anything is rescuable, perhaps by a merger here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Follow up on this - I've outlined specific areas that still need work (Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#AfD Cleanup 2021) so any help would be appreciated. I think the area that is going to be the most difficult to source is actually the History section. I found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone translate this image to English? It would be good for English article on Magic: The Gathering. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Request for image help added at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Oct 2021#Magic: The Gathering rules. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean convert the image? Jugador is player, mano is hand, cemeterio is graveyard, biblioteca is library, and en juego doesn't nicely translate, but I believe it just means Battlefield. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Leitmotiv Right, all we need is for someone to edit the image and change the text to English. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Done! Cleaned up the image a tiny smidge too. Tried to keep it faithful to the original as possible, including font. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Leitmotiv Excellent job, thank you! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Done! Cleaned up the image a tiny smidge too. Tried to keep it faithful to the original as possible, including font. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Leitmotiv Right, all we need is for someone to edit the image and change the text to English. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sets following Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty
Hi all! We should try to keep updating this article when they release new sets, or potentially link to a page that lists the expansions. This should serve as a reminder to future editors to be bold and add new sections if they visit this article and notice that newer additions have not yet been included! : ) Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
2 (Two) issues with the page.
There is nothing talking about Draft play; and there is no reference on game pieces except for the actual cards themselves. 2600:1700:93B0:6B50:BC6A:C67:7A27:7D40 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Sports and recreation good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- GA-Class Magic: The Gathering articles
- GA-Class board and table game articles
- High-importance board and table game articles
- WikiProject Board and table games articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists