Template talk:Magic: The Gathering card

Template unncessary/not well used

External links aren't supposed to appear in the article prose, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone would actually need to link to individual cards in the external link section, so what exactly is supposed to be the purpose of this template?--Crossmr (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I know that almost all uses of these templates in the main MTG article were removed in a GA review awhile back, but I disagree that it was a good idea. External links in prose is normally a bad idea, yes, but the average reader will have no idea what a specific Magic card used as an example is. Why not link to the authoritative source to show the card? Additionally it avoids the fair use whiners if we were to just include an image of the card here to link to it instead. SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Because they don't belong in the prose of the article. It is normally a bad idea and WP:EL clearly states that exceptions are very rare, and the amount it seems this template is used goes well beyond that. If they were removed from a GA then it's a pretty clear indication they shouldn't be in any article. About the only use this template would have would be on articles of cards that were notable enough on their own to have an article. Remember also that wikipedia is not a link repository and the way this template is used, is that it's turning articles into link repositories.--Crossmr (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think that the usage of this templaet is flawed. Was there a discussion somewhere why to use it even though it goes against the standard way external links in the body of the article are dealt with (=removed)? I can see its usefullness (helps the reader to see the card immediately etc.) but the same could be said about many other external links, especially pictures. (A picture is worth a thousand words but we do not include links to pictures into the text of an article.

WP:EXT states: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." That's why useful links are placed in the External Links section. The guidleline says "normally" and there are exceptions, for example linking directly to government Bills, or patents. But they serve as a reference ("According to Bill No 7777,..."), whereas MTG template, and any other picture, usually just illustrate the topic, and have, therefore, their own places to be, such as Gallery or Wikimedia Commons. So my question is what was the reasoning behind the cration of this template? Where and how to use so that it does not conflict with WP:EXT? It was created in 2006 maybe its time to revise its usefulness? --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly the same thing as the patent - see the details on the card being referenced immediately. A Gallery & Commons won't work because the cards will never be released under a "free" license, and in general the WP image zealots frown upon using fair use images in a gallery, and Commons is explicit free-license only. The external links section doesn't work either - if I say "Black Lotus" in the article, nobody's going to connect this with a seeming unrelated link to Black Lotus on Gatherer at the bottom of the article. Anyway, per earlier comment, this is really the same as looking up details on a patent or a law, so I think the usage is fine. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for commenting. The problem is that the way the template is used (and was in Magic: The Gathering before I removed it) was not "exactly" like the bills. For example, the text said "The most expensive card that was in regular print (as opposed to being a promotional or special printing) is Black Lotus" The template does not relate to what the sentence said (price of Black Lotus). If the template linking to Black Lotus were to provide source to something like "Some cards cost 0 mana to cast.", it would be probably OK. For an example of this misuse, have a look at Urza's Destiny#History and impact and below - that's not how a wikiarticle should look like; there are more MTG-related pages like this. But I do not want to start removing such passages without understanding the reasoning behind the template. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true (that the link isn't always directly related), but not particularly a concern in my eyes. I basically would consider usage of this template appropriate anywhere a wikilink to another article is - we don't expect that the information in the article is 100% related to the sentence, but if it is "related enough" to provide more detail, it's still a useful wikilink. The text you called out is not exactly a sterling example of prose, but a "better" version of that section with references would still benefit from this template, in my opinion. It's not that much different from a line saying, perhaps, "European countries involved in the American Revolutionary War include Great Britain, ancien regime France, Bourbon Spain, and the Dutch Republic." Such a line demands more of an explanation and isn't very specific - who was on what side, why, etc., but the links are all valid and potentially useful, even if knowing the exact meaning of "ancien regime" is only quasi-related to the topic. So a rewritten section would probably still include the links, IMHO. The fact that mtgcard creates an external link is a reason to be more sparing in its use, sure, but not a "never use" deal. People are paying a lot for a Black Lotus? Why? What is a Black Lotus? Clicking the link provides the answer. SnowFire (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you, as the creator of the template, regard it as a part of wikipedia, whereas I approach it from the other side, as something outside wikipedia (based on the fact that it links outside wiki pages). You see it as a special wikilink, I as a special external link. External links may often be more informative than wikilinks in a specific context (e.g., following yout example, linking to an article devoted to "Great Britain's involvment in the American Revolutionary War" instead of Great Britain, and still they are not used. Imagine how the articles would look like, linking names of authors to their official sites, songs to audio, athletes to charts... However, this probably cannot be "resolved" by the two of us. But I must be at least against the usage that can be illustrated, too, by your resoning: "People are paying a lot for a Black Lotus? Why? What is a Black Lotus? Clicking the link provides the answer." It does not provide the answer to "why", only to "what are they paying for". You have to interpret the mana cost and the ability to see it and still you don't have the full picture (collectors). Such usage as examples for people "to see for themselves" is very misleading and may be OK at fansites but not at a general public encyclopedia. Articles such as Magic: The Gathering deck types could not exist (in their current state) without the template - and that would be OK, because they would have to be rewritten to explain to the reader, and not to merely show a picture. --WikiHannibal (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(de-indent) You're correct that external links to random webpages aren't Wikipedia's style. However, the reasoning for this isn't based on "what's part of Wikipedia" and "what's external." We'd both agree that a link to a webpage on the American Revolutionary War history would be inappropriate in the article text itself - it should be used as a reference or in the external links.

However, I see a difference for Gatherer links, which are closer to "copyrighted reference material." The best way for a reader to understand a Black Lotus is not to explain it in grinding detail, but rather to let the reader do what actual MTG players do and see the card. There is but one simple and most effective way, and there's no other way to do it because of the copyright issue, and it saves needless duplication. Explaining in-line what cards do is distracting and terrible writing style, and doesn't cope well with both beginning readers (who may want to know more) and MTG-familiar readers (who only need the card mentioned and don't need an explanation). This is exactly the same dilemma as wikilinking to other subjects - let people click the link who need it (except, unfortunately, it's an external link) and let others ignore it. I don't see why you think that letting people see the subject is in any way "very misleading" and only appropriate for "fansites." For a free-content example, look at artists from 1900 and before whose work is in the public domain. Do you think that Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec#Selected works is misleading? I disagree, the best way to get a feel for his artwork is to, well, see it, not have it described in text. In that case, Wikipedia can display the images without fear of copyright issues. With Magic cards, we can't, but we can link to them, so that's the next best thing. As a corollary, in the case of paintings of modern artists that don't quality as "fair use" yet are nevertheless discussed, I'd have no problem with an in-line link to the artist's webpage where the painting in question can be seen. That'd also reduce the need to explain to the reader something that is more easily grasped by just looking. Would you disagree there? SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)