| Revision as of 04:27, 22 July 2004 editNetoholic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,916 edits →septing← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:44, 8 December 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,684 edits assess |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
There risks being too many expansions listed on this page making it unwieldy. Perhaps it would be better as a sidebar or linked to a separate page. |
|
|
|
{{notice|{{find sources}}}} |
|
:] 15:43, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=05:30, 19 October 2005 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Magic: The Gathering/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=25872331 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
:I think this article in general is becoming unwieldy. It seems every topic is getting expanded sans temperance. Some summarizing and splitting up of the article is called for IMO. At least the stuff on tournament play and DCI (etc.) could be split off into ] or some such. Also, there really shouldn't be more than handful of external links -- some of them seem to be adverts. --] 18:55, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2date=14:32, 2 February 2006 |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA1 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=37845804 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
|
: With the single possible exception of FindMagicCards.com, none of the external links are sites associated with selling Magic cards (well, the official sites don't count, since we definitely want those up there). The external links present are probably the largest, most linked, and most useful Magic sites on the Net; I don't think those really pose a problem. I am surprised, though, that we do not yet have an article for the DCI. --] 19:08, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=3:19, 2 December 2008 |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA2 |
|
|
|action3result=delisted |
|
|
|action3oldid=253939624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=PR |
|
: StarCityGames.com is also a site that sells Magic cards. However, it is one of the most important strategy sites on the Net, with articles contributed by many pro players, and it was even tagged by Wizards of the Coast to do the official coverage for the 2003 Type I Championships. So I think the link should stay there. --] 19:46, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date=19:31, 28 April 2009 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Magic: The Gathering/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=286603752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
:: Ah, yes I agree. I was a bit cranky yesterday. I don't think there's a problem, just need to make sure that poor external links don't dilute the important ones. For a different reason, the only one I think could go at this point is that direct link to Wizards.com because there are already two official MTG links that take you to WotC and we've got our own page for WotC. Not a big deal though. --] 15:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=01:12, 11 August 2009 |
|
|
|action5link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA3 |
|
|
|action5result=listed |
|
|
|action5oldid=307204361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=Everydaylife |
|
:: I agree about the WotC link, which I've removed. --] 18:55, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2023-08-05|otd1oldid=1168625927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6 = GAR |
|
I took the plunge and actually created new pages for the base sets and expansions. I also took the DCI, made it its own page and moved all tourney info there. I hope people find this makes the page more manageable. |
|
|
:] 21:56, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|action6date = 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action6link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Magic: The Gathering/1 |
|
|
|action6result = delisted |
|
|
|action6oldid = 1259059287 |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Jace Beleren|Jace Beleren|03 February 2014}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Planeswalker|Planeswalker|18 October 2013}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Games|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Magic: The Gathering}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Board and table games|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{todo|5}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
:: Thanks for polishing the edits, Lowellian. And good idea about merging the set lists. |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
::] 06:52, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== vice Presidential candidate JD Vance admits to playing magic The gathering in his book Hillbilly Elegy since 1999 == |
|
== Card Photos == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
author and vice presidential candidate JD Vance admits to being a player of magic The gathering since 1999 in his book Hillbilly Elegy ] (]) 05:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
Just a warning: The Magic card images posted (6 magic cards from various editions) ''may'' fall under copyright. I say "may" because I don't know for sure. ] 15:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::A number of years ago, I suggested an episode of ''Family Guy'' where a suicide bomber goes to Paradise to claim his 72 virgins, only to find they are in fact 72 unmarried ''Star Trek'' fans who are "just about to play a game of ''Magic: The Gathering''"; but was slapped down because it '''lacked notability''', or some such nonsense. Uh-huh. This time next year, ask someone who the hell J.D.Vance used to be. |
|
:They do fall under copyright, but historically the copyright holders have been lenient in allowing websites to use images of cards; most of the popular strategy and vendor websites (Star City, Brainburst, Find Magic Cards, Anycraze) post full images of thousands of individual cards, and I cannot recall a single case where Hasbro or Wizards asked a site to take their images down. Six cards should be alright. ] 17:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 04:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GA concerns == |
|
::thats interesting because I added a picture of a black lotus on this page a few months ago and some paranoid pedian complained and took it down. ] 19:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below: |
|
:Don't know if I like the pictures posted, mostly because they don't show the card borders. I may come back and edit, be nice to show a selection of cards (Alpha, 8th edition, Unglued, etc.). -- ] 21:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*There are uncited passages in the text, including entire paragraphs. |
|
==Mike Church== |
|
|
|
*There are several sections that are quite long: these should have the text reduced or split with level 3 headings. |
|
|
*This article is over 10,000 words: ] recommends that articles this big should be ] or have the prose trimmed. I think this article should consider reducing the prose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this article go to ]? ] (]) 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I removed this section: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Duel Masters and Destroy all humans == |
|
''One outspoken critic of Magic, a designer named Mike Church (known for the card game ]), disagrees. Church, who referred to Magic in ] as a "money-spending contest dressed up as a fantasy game", described mana-screw as a "gaping flaw in the design of ... that should've been fixed in the first day of playtesting". As he quipped, "mana-screw makes a whole 20 minutes of play not fun, and that's just bad design. How hard is it to have two piles, one for land, and one for spells, and let the player choose which to draw from?" However, critics of Church have pointed out that, according to a ] post, he admits to not having played Magic since ], and therefore should be discounted as a credible voice in the contemporary Magic-playing community.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be good to mention "Duel Masters" (until 2002) and "Destroy All Humans. They Can't Be Regenerated" manga and anime. which are based on MTG.Not sure where to put it in the article. ] (]) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
This was written by anonymous user ], who is ''(thought likely to be, by ])*'' ] (see , which he edited from the same IP range). It is silly for the article to refer to "one outspoken critic of Magic" whom 99.9999% of the people who play Magic have never heard of, as if he were somebody well-known for his critiques. It should be self-evident why Church extensively quoting himself is not appropriate here. He has designed a few games which are still well under the radar of people in the gaming comunity, and I hope he does not take it the wrong way when I say that he is not (yet?) famous enough to warrant quoting himself the way he did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
If anyone should be quoted on why mana-screw is a design flaw, it should be Zvi Mowshowitz, who is a very well-known critic of Magic's fundamental design from within the game's own community, and who is very well-known and respected among Magic players. I will see if I can dig up a few quotes from him on the subject. ] 03:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Magic: The Gathering/1}} |
|
|
|
|
(*parenthetical added by another user) |
|
|
|
|
|
:137.22 is the IP range of ], actually. So, yes, there is a high probability that the modification came from someone in Carleton. ''Do you have any idea how many students at this school use Misplaced Pages???'' Probably hundreds. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you had actually read that paragraph when removing it, you would have seen that it, in fact, attacked me by saying that my not having played since '98 makes me not a credible voice on the subject. In fact, it was a relatively ''pro-Magic'' selection, all said. I read that piece (this page is on my watchlist) myself and was going to remove parts of it, particularly the part that called me "not a credible voice". |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm going to restore at least some of that content, though I'll keep your objections in mind. ] 06:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The fact that the earlier edit came from your college's IP range and was not necessarily your own words has been noted. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would like to request that you stop adding your own commentary to the article. I read what you wrote about self-promotion on your user page, and while I agree with it when applied to the outside world, it is not appropriate in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
::And of course I "actually read" every word in the pargraph that I (and ] after me) removed, including the criticism. The whole point is that, by your own admission, you have not played the game in about six years (and it shows in your edits, like the one that stated that Timetwister was necessary to compete in Type I). As an analogy, if someone adds to the article ] a paragraph that begins "Noted genetic engineering critic ] has claimed...", this attribution is valid, because everyone working in that field of study, and the related ethical debate, has heard of Rifkin. If I were to insist on adding "Rifkin's claims have been rebuffed by Andrew Levine, who has argued...", then that makes no sense, becuase I am a nobody who is relatively uninformed on the subject. ] 08:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm decidedly '''not''' a nobody in the field of game design who's relatively uninformed on the subject. However, your point that I'm relatively uninformed on Magic ''as it is now'' stands and is well-taken. It seems that WotC has taken steps (for example, the expanding the mulligan) to improve their game dramatically ''(I still think-- no, know, because it is a fact--that the patent is a f*kin' swindle, but that's another story)'' and it's unfair for one like me, who is not informed on those developments, to comment except without further research. I won't reintroduce the comment if it's deleted. ] 08:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I never said that you were "a nobody in the field of game design", as you clearly aren't; just someone uninformed about Magic. I am glad that we have gotten this issue resolved. (And I agree with you about the patent.) ] 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Could www.Magic-League.com be added to the "Playing Magic on the Internet-section" and/or to the related links section? E-League actually hasn't got a ratings system anymore. We also run some tournaments with Magic Workstation, another online play application. But it is still in beta stages. ] 20:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
'''Question about the patent:''' I added a graf about the WotC suit against Nintendo. The suit had the potential to determine the validity of the patent, but it was settled early. I'm not enough involved in CCG's to know whether there have been any other suits. If no other suits have been filed, or if every suit filed has been settled or is still in an early enough stage that there's been no ruling on that issue, then it would be accurate for us to add, "The validity of this controversial patent has never been ruled on by a court." If that statement is correct, it would be useful information to add to the discussion of the patent. Given my limited knowledge of the field, the best I could do was to allude to the issue by noting that patents issued by the Patent Office are subject to judicial review. ] 04:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Someone I know (who's big into CCGs, and recently asked me to join an open-source CCG project; since it would be open-source it wouldn't run afoul of the patent) said that ] beat them on the patent issue. However, I couldn't stir it up myself. Most companies that do CCGs just buckle and pay royalties, since it's significantly less costly than a legal fight. WotC are essentially thugs ruling by fear, on this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's no way the patent would stand if basic logic were applied. What they've patented essentially boils down to: |
|
|
|
|
|
:*Modular play (i.e. there exists a large set of game components of which each player uses a subset, and players have a personal stake in which subset they choose) using collectible (physical or electronic) items. |
|
|
|
|
|
:*The "tap" mechanic. That is, any mechanic used to indicate that an object's powers have been temporarily used, at least involving rotation of the card to a new orientation. (I'm pretty sure a mechanic such as shading the "card", in an online version, would skirt around the patent). |
|
|
|
|
|
:*The system by which cards are partitioned into a set of randomized game components (library), a set at a player's disposal (hand), and a set that is public knowledge and affects the game (in play, graveyard). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not a single one of these things did Garfield or WotC invent. Historical fact shows that much of what's now protected was low-hanging fruit that actually predated Magic by decades: LARPs use modular play with collectible items; tap-like mechanics existed in pre-Magic RPGs; finally, many traditional card games used "libraries" (not by that name) and "hands". At any rate, even the CCG genre itself was not invented by Garfield or WotC; Magic simply ''popularized'' the genre. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Wizards should definitely have control of their art, rules text, basic game structure, flavor text, and some of the items unequivocally of their own invention (i.e. "Weatherlight" and the name "Lhurgoyf") but not a whole genre. There's not a chance the patent could stand in any reasonable court. However, challenging WotC would be pretty damn expensive, and few companies can afford the risk. If you don't have enough HP and STR to spear the fucker, you pay the troll to cross the bridge. ] 10:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Moved from article: |
|
|
''The decision to patent an ''entire genre'' of game was highly controversial. While none would argue that the company should own the rights to Magic's particular rules, art, flavor text, game structure, and other copyrightable materials, the patent covers many game mechanics that neither Garfield nor Wizards invented, but which had not been patented before. Some of these game mechanics (modular play using collectible items, physical manipulation of objects to indicate temporary "tap"ping of their powers) predated Magic by decades in other game genres and are still therein used, unchallenged by Wizards. However, all who own collectible card games pay a royalty based upon this patent. While the patent's scope would likely be dramatically reduced if it were used in a lawsuit, the costs of such a legal challenge would by far exceed the royalty rates. In this sense, Wizards uses the patent to exact tributes, ruling by fear.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== Kai Budde == |
|
|
The description next to the Kai Budde link doesn't seem to follow NPOV, although I don't know (which is why I am not removing it myself). I don't follow the tournament scene. Whatever happened to Jon Finkel? - ] 00:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Septing == |
|
|
"People who own more than $1000 in Magic cards are empirically more likely to get septed than those who do not, by a margin believed to be roughly 75 percent." |
|
|
what the hell is this about? ] 02:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
: I don't know either, but I reverted . Someone trying to be funny I suppose. -- ] 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
author and vice presidential candidate JD Vance admits to being a player of magic The gathering since 1999 in his book Hillbilly Elegy 75.118.50.197 (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be good to mention "Duel Masters" (until 2002) and "Destroy All Humans. They Can't Be Regenerated" manga and anime. which are based on MTG.Not sure where to put it in the article. 185.18.60.54 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is uncited text throughout the article, including entire sections and paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and is probably too detailed in some areas. Some sections are quite large, affecting readability especially for mobile users. If there is still a lot of text in some of these sections after the prose is reduced, I recommend that it be broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
