Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Future set articles
Dominaria isn't in great shape, and there isn't even an article for Guilds of Ravnica or Core Set 2019 yet. With the demise of the block structure and the lack of content currently available, I'm thinking Dominaria should be moved to Magic: The Gathering sets, 2018&ndash-present and new sets added to that article. Any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: Not much has changed since you posted the above comment. Given the current state of Wizards release cycle and WP articles on Magic, I would suggest Magic: The Gathering core sets, 2018–present and Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 2018–present, merging Dominaria into the latter. I haven't followed Magic for a long time, so I don't know what to do with "Secret Lairs" (mentioned in a separate discussion) or the co-branded D&D set (is this the 2022 core set?) or all the other various things mentioned in /r/magicTCG. Mindmatrix 17:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: Personally, I think the old distinction between having core sets in their own list article and other sets in either list articles or expansion articles no longer makes sense. Core Sets aren't any different than any random new set anymore, and they aren't treated differently in media, unlike older Core Sets. I can whip up a draft of what such a move / merge might look like, sure, just kinda lost interest in maintaining this part of Wikipedia since it's a bit thankless and finding good references can be tricky - the older articles include quite a bit, probably too much, primary sourcing. Which is not to say that there aren't secondary sources, they're just harder to find. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @SnowFire and Mindmatrix: Just saw your discussion and wanted to let you both know that I've added or improved reception sections for the following sets: Kaladesh, Amonkhet, Ixalan, Dominaria, Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance, War of the Spark, Throne of Eldraine, Theros Beyond Death, Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths, Zendikar Rising, Kaldheim, Strixhaven: School of Mages. I tried whenever possible to use more mainstream secondary sources (like Polygon (website) or Paste (magazine)) but there are definitely weaker articles in that list. I think the biggest issue I ran into is how to source the various mechanics sections. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: Personally, I think the old distinction between having core sets in their own list article and other sets in either list articles or expansion articles no longer makes sense. Core Sets aren't any different than any random new set anymore, and they aren't treated differently in media, unlike older Core Sets. I can whip up a draft of what such a move / merge might look like, sure, just kinda lost interest in maintaining this part of Wikipedia since it's a bit thankless and finding good references can be tricky - the older articles include quite a bit, probably too much, primary sourcing. Which is not to say that there aren't secondary sources, they're just harder to find. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The Legends Card Checklist article
The redirect Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering) has been nominated for deletion. The only thing that potentially stands in the way of it getting deleted is the fact that it used to be an article for a brief period in 2007 (see old revision). Is there anything salvageable at all in this article, or can it just be deleted? – Uanfala (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)