I started playing Magic in April, and when I was trying to pick up the game, the articles on MTGSalvation and the Wiki were enormously helpful to me in learning the field and strategy.
I'd note that on the Wiki, every card name seems to link to the magiccards.info page for that card (which is awesome, since magiccards.info is awesome). However, one thing that I'd love to see is Wiki pages for particular cards with comments from experienced players on a particular card; why it's good, why it's bad, what kinds of decks it sees play in, etc., perhaps referencing articles previously written about the card (e.g. linking to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/zm10 in the Watchwolf article, if it exists).
I realize that some careful guidelines for such pages would have to be written up to get around flamewars on such pages, but I do know that it'd be a resource I would draw upon a lot until I learn all that knowledge for myself.
I started playing Magic in April, and when I was trying to pick up the game, the articles on MTGSalvation and the Wiki were enormously helpful to me in learning the field and strategy.
I'd note that on the Wiki, every card name seems to link to the magiccards.info page for that card (which is awesome, since magiccards.info is awesome). However, one thing that I'd love to see is Wiki pages for particular cards with comments from experienced players on a particular card; why it's good, why it's bad, what kinds of decks it sees play in, etc., perhaps referencing articles previously written about the card (e.g. linking to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/zm10 in the Watchwolf article, if it exists).
Hi, and welcome. (It does appear that you're new to the website, after all.)
I had a vision similar to yours (pros, cons, usage/performance, trivia), but along the way, I realized that more editors would have to get involved with the project, or it'd just be a couple people putting in the hard-yakka and others mooching off it (which is nothing bad or wrong; it's perhaps just a little unfair, then).
Something happened. The idea collapsed upon itself before its launch.
I realize that some careful guidelines for such pages would have to be written up to get around flamewars on such pages, but I do know that it'd be a resource I would draw upon a lot until I learn all that knowledge for myself.
Not so much flamewars; it's more to do with the tone of the article, the reliability/bias of the information, and the content itself (or that's really what it all boils down to, huh?).
Original research - by which I mean one's own analysis and claims about the cards - is quite a problem, especially when one can neither disprove them nor prove them.
For now, that's my two cents on this. Again, glad to see you here on the site and here voicing your opinion.
I don't disagree with any of the perspectives above, subjectivity is indeed a problem!
If a card is notable because it is a main component of a "famous deck", then that deck page could provide much more information and insight on why that card is important and how it interacts with other cards in your deck.
This is one of the more interesting points -- it's common for me to find a card that looks interesting, but I do not know what decks make use of it! It would be great if the Wiki had, if nothing else, a page for Narcomoeba that referenced the Ichorid deck, or that a page existed for the Moxes that merely stated that it is extremely common (required??) in Vintage decks, due to the ridiculous mana acceleration it provides (perhaps there is already a page that says this, since the Moxes are ubiquitous). The individual deck pages could then explain why the card is useful in conjunction with that deck (which they may or may not already do).
Glad to hear that these thoughts have been tossed around, though! Basically, since Magic is such a huge game with a long and storied history, it'd be really nice if there was a place that held a new player's hand a little through the highlights of that history.
Okay, so far, I've been doing some work on the cards sections, moving them so they don't need that "(card)" bit to their titles.
Well, it appears that there's quite an array of cards with articles already, some of which I believe shouldn't have articles (yet), such as Sakura-Tribe Elder (sure, it's good and whatever, but it isn't that notable).
Cards that, I think, should definitely have/deserve an article:
Power 9
Most banned/restricted cards; but I'm assuming it's got to do with their status has got to do with their power. (They'll also probably get "banned in [name of format]" categories.)
Special cards; by which I mean Invitationals, YMtC's, promos, alternate art cards, accidental alt. arts, such as the "blue Hurricane".
And that's a bare minimum... coming from a Magic n00b.
Quote from bakert »
However, if the MTG Salvation Wiki is being run along Wikipedia-style lines then perhaps the place for card and other public discussion of merits, disadvantages, etc. is somewhere else. (I wonder if it would mess up magiccards.info to add a comments section to each card at the bottom on the full page view?)
It would be a mess there, and I'm not sure how it'd be implemented.
I think a suggestion/proposal page be made either here or on the wiki itself, then people are free to talk cards and their notability out.
Quote from iron wallaby »
It would be great if the Wiki had, if nothing else, a page for Narcomoeba that referenced the Ichorid deck, or that a page existed for the Moxes that merely stated that it is extremely common (required??) in Vintage decks, due to the ridiculous mana acceleration it provides (perhaps there is already a page that says this, since the Moxes are ubiquitous). The individual deck pages could then explain why the card is useful in conjunction with that deck (which they may or may not already do).
Yes, it'd be a great idea and vision, but getting the numbers to contribute is one of the biggest worries at the moment.
As for structure, we already got a card template, with all the stats and whatnot boxes, created a while ago, and it can always be changed, assuming not that many new card pages will be made. After the trial period, it could be possible to check whether the tone, format, etc. are okay, then "thumbs up, green light", or "hold, wait".
The mtgswiki is a little looser then wikipedia.org. We have let OR (original research) creep into articles. That is the one thing I don't like about wikipedia.org is that you have to use citations everywhere almost. The problem we get into, as MM stated above, is in theory. One person's theory might make great sense to them (or to even 7% of the magic population), but others would scratch their head trying to understand.
We had about 5 cards that used a card template but the pages stated basically the same information found on magiccards.info Why were only 5 card pages created with the template while the wiki had been in existence for more then a year? It seemed to be grand project that was stopped.
The template still exists. I saved it from going into cyber oblivion, as there was no concsensus as to what to do with it.
Just my 2cents for now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's worked so far, but we're not out yet." ~ Bones
I helped writing something likt that once for Vintage only (outdated by now), and I gotta say the effort would be immense. Depending on your criteria, you could end up with only a few hundered cards that are or have been widely played or are interesting for some other reason. Now consider that you'd have to change every entry legal in a specific format whenever a metagame shift occurs there. After every rotation, at least a few dozen entries would become obsolete, and a few more whenever a new set comes in.
I'm not saying it's undoable, just hard to maintain with any quality.
Defining what cards are noteable would also prove troublesome. Thoughtseize is worthy of mention unless you want the bare minimum of a few dozen cards. Not every card banned or restricted is that noteworthy unless you want a historical approach as well - and than you end up with entries with low relevance (especially where past Standard an Block relevant cards are concerned). Are all Invitational cards interesting just because they're designed by players? They sure are interesting to somebody but you just can't hope to include everything somebody finds interesting. I would base the whole thing on playability, strategy, interaction, combos, rules, etc, but other players may want to include trivia and flavor.
It'd sure be a very useful reference, especially for newer players, but I just doubt that it's doable on a large scale.
Right, but you're looking at it top-down. Wikis are, by nature, bottom up.
Also, your argument falls under the perfectionist fallacy: just because it will never be totally perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
I agree that there is a lot to be gained from giving each individual card its own entry. For instance, card-centric facts like these are hard to reliably find and organize at the moment:
- Char is a color-shifted version of Psionic Blast.
- The flavor text in the Shards version of Oblivion Ring structurally references the flavor text in the Lorwyn version.
- Donate is an integral part of the famous Trix deck.
- Scorched Rusalka is part of a five-card cycle that also includes Drowned Rusalka, Martyred Rusalka, Plagued Rusalka and Starved Rusalka.
- The B.F.M. from Unglued wears Phyrexian Dreadnought and Polar Kraken for earrings.
I think it would be really cool to have pages that listed facts like these for each card where it was relevant. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to automate creation of a node for each card in existence.
I'm not sold on the idea that you want subjective discussions of which cards are good in a wiki (at the very least, you'd probably want to create a "comments" section of each node and restrict discussion to that area), but the more objective things would be right at home.
Just my 2c, and I'd be happy to donate some time to help make this work, if the project admins were interested.
But where do you draw the line then? The Rusalka information and B.F.M. information is getting pretty trivial. For example, the Un-set cards all have A LOT of trivia and references to other cards, sets, etc. If that is the route that you want to go, then it might be better to create one page per set for card trivia. Then BFM on the Unglued trivia page could link to Polar Kraken on the Ice Age trivia page and to Phyrexian Dreadnought on the Mirage trivia page.
EDIT: Although as I am looking at the set pages now, it appears like this is already on a lot of them, which sort of makes this unneeded.
If the MTGS wiki allowed opinion on cards(signed or unsigned) you would have a lot of comments like - "this card sucks" "no it doesn't" or " you idiot this card rules".
That is probably the best argument against it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Yes, some sets have "trivial" sub pages, like Time Spiral.
Your right, opinion should really be left out if we do have individual card pages. It is left out of the trivial pages and we try not to let opinion creep into pages too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's worked so far, but we're not out yet." ~ Bones
The Rusalka information and B.F.M. information is getting pretty trivial.
People like trivia.
As long as things are properly organized, I don't think it's possible to have too much information.
Listing trivia for all cards in a set doesn't seem like a very elegant solution to me. Listing card cycles might make sense, but certain bits of information would seem out of place. (For instance, the piece about the similarities between Char and Psionic Blast wouldn't make much sense on a Ravnica page.) Also, remember that not all cycles are contained within a single set or even a single block.
The question of subjective comments is really a matter of taste. Personally, I think it could work if confined to a specific, clearly marked section of each node. However, I also think it would require a serious amount of moderation to avoid devolving into a worthless mess of inane one-liners and flames.
Each expansion set's wiki page does list card cycles. If the cycle is within the block (like the Guild lands) then it is listed on that block's wiki page (Ravnica block). We even have a page for mega-mega cycles, like the Weatherlight saga legendary lands that were printed from the Mirage, Tempest, Urza, Masques and Invasion blocks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's worked so far, but we're not out yet." ~ Bones
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Notable cards can be opinionated, but here is an example of the Shadowmoor's notable card section:
Firespout - A hybrid sorcery with a casting cost of 2RG. This casting cost is cheaper then a 2 point Earthquake or a 2 point Hurricane. If R is spent to cast Firesprout then it deals 3 damage to each non-flying creature, if G is spent to cast Firesprout then it deals 3 damage to each flying creature. Also, if GR is spent in the casting cost it deals 3 damage to all creatures - a very good bargain.
Safewright Quest - A land tutor with a casting cost of GW. It is also the first land tutor that can search for either a Forest or Plains specifically.
Savor the Moment - This is the cheapest casting cost "take an extra turn" spell since Alpha's Time Walk, at just 1UU but has the drawback of skipping the untap step of that turn.
Smash to Smithereens - An improved version of the card Shatter, Smash to Smithereens also deals 3 damage to the artifact's controller.
Strip Bare - At just W, this instant destroys all auras and equipment attached to a target creature.
Some set articles might also have a "tournament impact" section.
Muh, yeh, I think.
There's something I keep forgetting...
Oh, yeah, tournament impact; not just, 'oh hai, this iz a puwerfel kard, able to be lieknd 2 this card and [rewrite card effect, e.g. for Dark Ritual, adds three skull dudes to ur mana p00l]'.
Yes, some people do; and it's fine so long as the trivia doesn't actually tower over the original set article.
As long as things are properly organized, I don't think it's possible to have too much information.
Card, art, flavour text, etc. analysis.
You can go as deep as you can, and it can be as much original research, in that way.
Listing trivia for all cards in a set doesn't seem like a very elegant solution to me. Listing card cycles might make sense, but certain bits of information would seem out of place. (For instance, the piece about the similarities between Char and Psionic Blast wouldn't make much sense on a Ravnica page.) Also, remember that not all cycles are contained within a single set or even a single block.
Jah.
In fact, I think it's pretty daft to list whatever is similar to whatever other card; making a table is easier.
The question of subjective comments is really a matter of taste. Personally, I think it could work if confined to a specific, clearly marked section of each node. However, I also think it would require a serious amount of moderation to avoid devolving into a worthless mess of inane one-liners and flames.
Mmm... yeah.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd note that on the Wiki, every card name seems to link to the magiccards.info page for that card (which is awesome, since magiccards.info is awesome). However, one thing that I'd love to see is Wiki pages for particular cards with comments from experienced players on a particular card; why it's good, why it's bad, what kinds of decks it sees play in, etc., perhaps referencing articles previously written about the card (e.g. linking to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/zm10 in the Watchwolf article, if it exists).
I realize that some careful guidelines for such pages would have to be written up to get around flamewars on such pages, but I do know that it'd be a resource I would draw upon a lot until I learn all that knowledge for myself.
I had a vision similar to yours (pros, cons, usage/performance, trivia), but along the way, I realized that more editors would have to get involved with the project, or it'd just be a couple people putting in the hard-yakka and others mooching off it (which is nothing bad or wrong; it's perhaps just a little unfair, then).
Something happened. The idea collapsed upon itself before its launch.
Not so much flamewars; it's more to do with the tone of the article, the reliability/bias of the information, and the content itself (or that's really what it all boils down to, huh?).
Original research - by which I mean one's own analysis and claims about the cards - is quite a problem, especially when one can neither disprove them nor prove them.
For now, that's my two cents on this. Again, glad to see you here on the site and here voicing your opinion.
I don't disagree with any of the perspectives above, subjectivity is indeed a problem!
This is one of the more interesting points -- it's common for me to find a card that looks interesting, but I do not know what decks make use of it! It would be great if the Wiki had, if nothing else, a page for Narcomoeba that referenced the Ichorid deck, or that a page existed for the Moxes that merely stated that it is extremely common (required??) in Vintage decks, due to the ridiculous mana acceleration it provides (perhaps there is already a page that says this, since the Moxes are ubiquitous). The individual deck pages could then explain why the card is useful in conjunction with that deck (which they may or may not already do).
Glad to hear that these thoughts have been tossed around, though! Basically, since Magic is such a huge game with a long and storied history, it'd be really nice if there was a place that held a new player's hand a little through the highlights of that history.
Well, it appears that there's quite an array of cards with articles already, some of which I believe shouldn't have articles (yet), such as Sakura-Tribe Elder (sure, it's good and whatever, but it isn't that notable).
Cards that, I think, should definitely have/deserve an article:
And that's a bare minimum... coming from a Magic n00b.
It would be a mess there, and I'm not sure how it'd be implemented.
I think a suggestion/proposal page be made either here or on the wiki itself, then people are free to talk cards and their notability out.
Yes, it'd be a great idea and vision, but getting the numbers to contribute is one of the biggest worries at the moment.
As for structure, we already got a card template, with all the stats and whatnot boxes, created a while ago, and it can always be changed, assuming not that many new card pages will be made. After the trial period, it could be possible to check whether the tone, format, etc. are okay, then "thumbs up, green light", or "hold, wait".
We had about 5 cards that used a card template but the pages stated basically the same information found on magiccards.info Why were only 5 card pages created with the template while the wiki had been in existence for more then a year? It seemed to be grand project that was stopped.
The template still exists. I saved it from going into cyber oblivion, as there was no concsensus as to what to do with it.
Just my 2cents for now.
Thanks goes to Purple D for this Sox-rockin' siggie
Right, but you're looking at it top-down. Wikis are, by nature, bottom up.
Also, your argument falls under the perfectionist fallacy: just because it will never be totally perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
- Char is a color-shifted version of Psionic Blast.
- The flavor text in the Shards version of Oblivion Ring structurally references the flavor text in the Lorwyn version.
- Donate is an integral part of the famous Trix deck.
- Scorched Rusalka is part of a five-card cycle that also includes Drowned Rusalka, Martyred Rusalka, Plagued Rusalka and Starved Rusalka.
- The B.F.M. from Unglued wears Phyrexian Dreadnought and Polar Kraken for earrings.
I think it would be really cool to have pages that listed facts like these for each card where it was relevant. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to automate creation of a node for each card in existence.
I'm not sold on the idea that you want subjective discussions of which cards are good in a wiki (at the very least, you'd probably want to create a "comments" section of each node and restrict discussion to that area), but the more objective things would be right at home.
Just my 2c, and I'd be happy to donate some time to help make this work, if the project admins were interested.
EDIT: Although as I am looking at the set pages now, it appears like this is already on a lot of them, which sort of makes this unneeded.
That is probably the best argument against it.
There's no proof she's being chased
by ninja squirrels either. - Dr. Wilson
Your right, opinion should really be left out if we do have individual card pages. It is left out of the trivial pages and we try not to let opinion creep into pages too.
People like trivia.
As long as things are properly organized, I don't think it's possible to have too much information.
Listing trivia for all cards in a set doesn't seem like a very elegant solution to me. Listing card cycles might make sense, but certain bits of information would seem out of place. (For instance, the piece about the similarities between Char and Psionic Blast wouldn't make much sense on a Ravnica page.) Also, remember that not all cycles are contained within a single set or even a single block.
The question of subjective comments is really a matter of taste. Personally, I think it could work if confined to a specific, clearly marked section of each node. However, I also think it would require a serious amount of moderation to avoid devolving into a worthless mess of inane one-liners and flames.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Notable cards can be opinionated, but here is an example of the Shadowmoor's notable card section:
Firespout - A hybrid sorcery with a casting cost of 2RG. This casting cost is cheaper then a 2 point Earthquake or a 2 point Hurricane. If R is spent to cast Firesprout then it deals 3 damage to each non-flying creature, if G is spent to cast Firesprout then it deals 3 damage to each flying creature. Also, if GR is spent in the casting cost it deals 3 damage to all creatures - a very good bargain.
Safewright Quest - A land tutor with a casting cost of GW. It is also the first land tutor that can search for either a Forest or Plains specifically.
Savor the Moment - This is the cheapest casting cost "take an extra turn" spell since Alpha's Time Walk, at just 1UU but has the drawback of skipping the untap step of that turn.
Smash to Smithereens - An improved version of the card Shatter, Smash to Smithereens also deals 3 damage to the artifact's controller.
Strip Bare - At just W, this instant destroys all auras and equipment attached to a target creature.
Some set articles might also have a "tournament impact" section.
Muh, yeh, I think.
There's something I keep forgetting...
Oh, yeah, tournament impact; not just, 'oh hai, this iz a puwerfel kard, able to be lieknd 2 this card and [rewrite card effect, e.g. for Dark Ritual, adds three skull dudes to ur mana p00l]'.
Yes, some people do; and it's fine so long as the trivia doesn't actually tower over the original set article.
Card, art, flavour text, etc. analysis.
You can go as deep as you can, and it can be as much original research, in that way.
Jah.
In fact, I think it's pretty daft to list whatever is similar to whatever other card; making a table is easier.
Mmm... yeah.