MTG Wiki

Hi Tuamir! Like your input. Wouldn't it be better to remove or shorten the explanation of the player types from the slang list? It would be better if all the main info is in one place. --Hunter (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Tuamir (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

C/D/E to M/N/O[]

i think its cool that you change all pages with that but don't forget pages like List_of_Magic_slang#C and Prototype creature --Hanmac (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I will change that now because priority. Thanks --Tuamir (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating mana symbols[]

Couldn't we go for the gatherer symbols to have a consistent look and feel? Or does anything speak against this? - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Gatherer symbols is that they have a black contour. --Tuamir (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, those icons are not free resources. We cannot disregard legal obligations because we're "just" a gaming wiki or anything like that, and the statement at the bottom of each page, "Magic: The Gathering content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of Wizards of the Coast its licensors", does not grant us free use of that content. Any content, text or image or otherwise, needs to be either authored by an editor here (in which case it is released under CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 at the time of submission) or licensed in such a way that we are authorized to use it, be that public domain, a compatible Creative Commons license, copyrighted but permissible as fair-use, or specifically permitted by WotC (or other copyright owner). --Corveroth (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with that. I don't know if we are officially endorsed by Wizards. I know the GW2 wiki was by ArenaNet allowing them to publish copyrighted material as long as they made clear that ArenaNet is Owner of the stuff and it is used with permission. However from your reaction I assume we are not official. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 20:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope. MTGS Wiki is an intersection of MTG Salvation and Gamepedia, both owned by Curse. To the best of my knowledge, no special agreement exists between WotC and any other relevant entity. --Corveroth (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Limited deck vs. sealed deck[]

I can find nothing in the January 16 Comprehensive Rules referring to a limited deck format (or any format aside from "constructed," "limited," and the various casual variants). The most recent Tournament Rules (January 18) also still say Sealed Deck, and makes no mention of Limited Deck. Where did you find your information regarding the switch? —ProtonZero[talk] 11:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a pending update over that. Limited is the generic format, which have two ways to be played: via draft or via limited deck. "Limited decks must contain a minimum of forty cards. There is no maximum deck size." This is what the Comprehensive Rules say about, nothing more nothing less. The CR rules doesn't mention the exclusively name for the competitive formats, like Sealed Deck or Booster Draft or Rochester Draft. We need to make a distinction between the way of playing (limited deck) and the exclusive competitive way of playing (Sealed Deck). They are "the same", but Sealed Deck refers exclusively just to the tournament. It happens that in this wiki we don't use the Tournament Rules you cite, but hey, if we do a template for the TR then we could solve that!! --Tuamir (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
When it says "limited deck" in the CR, that's because it refers to decks used in all limited formats, including draft and sealed. In the rule prior, the phrase "constructed deck" is used, but that doesn't refer to a specific format either, just any deck used in any constructed format. Nothing about the rules has changed, and whether you're getting a bunch of boosters with friends or playing in a tournament, "sealed deck" is still what it's always been called and what it's still called. —ProtonZero[talk] 20:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Do the changes you think are appropriate as long as Sealed Deck is referred exclusively as a tournament, in my opinion. The wiki should reflect what the CR and TR rules say and not what people usually say. --Tuamir (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. This isn't about opinions, this is about the fact that literally nowhere describes a format called "limited deck." The part of the CR you referred to has been phrased that way for years, and it's never been meant to imply that the format is called limited deck. I'm not sure how else to explain it. —ProtonZero[talk] 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, that has to be changed. Limited deck is not a format, is one of two generic ways to play the limited format. --Tuamir (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Until you find any resource beyond that single misread Comprehensive Rule that indicates "limited deck" means anything other than "a deck used in a limited format," I'm going to revert your changes. There's simply no evidence supporting your case. —ProtonZero[talk] 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a source: Wizards.
Under LIMITED FORMATS the terms BOOSTER DRAFT and SEALED DECK are used. So Wizards is referring to the format as Sealed deck. Limited deck is not a format. By the way, specific formats are never fully described in the comprehensive rules. Standard, Modern and Legacy are all not explained, you have to know that these are constructed formats. The casual variants section mainly introduces rules needed to play a specific format. But things like banlists are not included aka you could play something like Pauper Commander, if there are any legendary common creatures. - Yandere Sliver H09 symbol.png 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Planeswalker template[]

Would you like to lend your voice to the discussion regarding the formatting of Template:Planeswalker? Template_talk:Planeswalker --Corveroth (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks --Tuamir (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


I like the amount of editing you do, but could you please add sources to what you edit? The whole point of a wiki is to get information from multiple sources and combine them. No source = no legitimacy. At this point, for some articles (ie. ) I just can't confirm whether it's based on actual sources, or mad scribblings. I presume it's the former - I have that much faith in our users - but lack of sources negatively impact the wiki's credibility as a whole. Thanks. AlmaV (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Done --Tuamir (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)