Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering
use of the term "professional" on player articles
I noticed that some notable player articles mention that the subject is a "professional" MTG player, but others don't - just inquiring on what the guideline is for this? There was some mention of "professional" in the archives when discussing the wikiproject notability guidelines, but it wasn't wikipedia-specific. --SesameballTalk 22:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no guideline on this. Most of this is attributable to inconsistent writing on my part. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Re-pinging @Sesameball: because I didn't do it properly the first time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering
MTG pro player AfDs
I'm putting a bunch of pro mtg player articles up for deletion at AfD. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up over here.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I was a bit surprised by your inclusion of players like Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa and others that I'd think would easily pass WP:BIO, either due to inclusion in the Hall of Fame or simply winning enough top-level tournaments to infer community notability. Many of the same arguments against exclusion are presented in past unsuccessful AfDs. In any case, if many of your proposed AfDs are found to lack WP:GNG, then this WikiProject may have to modify its notability guidelines to something that more realistically infers notability. --SesameballTalk 07:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- We discussed the guidelines for inlusion here. That was a long time ago, and from experience with using these criteria I think that 200 Pro Points do not really constitute notability. There are way too many players that have stub-like articles, that will not improve in the forseeable future. On the other hand I do think it is hard to argue that Magic Hall of Famers do not have crossed the notability threshold. From my perspective the rest is up for discussion. I'd rather keep the few Players of the Year and 5+ times PT Top 8er, that did not make it into the Hall of Fame, but that is just my opinion. OdinFK (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the the notability requirements listed, but these guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, exists, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, so its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while, but I wanted to comment on this. I essentially quit as a Wikipedia editor almost a year ago in order to establish the pro scene section on the alternative Wiki that has been mentioned (the MTGS Wiki); this was in part because of the notability issues on Wikipedia. I don't begrudge Wikipedia its notability criteria; in fact, I think you are entirely correct in deleting a number of pro-related articles here, as the MTG-related notability criteria, especially when it comes to the required number of Pro Points in order to be regarded as notable, are too loose. But on a Wiki dedicated to MtG, these criteria quite obviously are slack, and so I figured it'd be more appropriate to continue my work there instead. I will have to extend a thank you to OdinFK and Sir Sputnik for their research on this topic (in particular the Pro Tour Season articles); I've used much of what they've found while building the other Wiki, and you're naturally welcome to contribute there too if you wish to. In any case: I agree with the general gist, but on the other hand, I saw to my surprise that the Nicolai Herzog article has been deleted. If a two-time Pro Tour champion and Hall of Famer is deemed not notable, then I don't think you will be able to keep many articles at all (Jon Finkel and Kai Budde?). I would, at the very least, argue that Hall of Famers should be regarded as notable, if nothing else. Hahahopp (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Article alerts
I've suggest that the project consider setting up WP:ALERTS rather than doing it manually. It's not that difficult and once set, it'll be easier to see everything going on with the articles in the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
potential merger of early Magic expansion sets.
Came up ages ago when there were some AFDs on the Core Set articles followed by creating merged list-articles, but some of the other "early" Magic set articles are a bit weak without much good sourcing at the moment. Any thoughts / complaints if I were to merge them?
I imagine it would be something like Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993-1995, and include Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, The Dark, Fallen Empires, Chronicles, and Homelands. (The one asterisk on that list is Chronicles, which wasn't exactly a normal expansion and closer to something like Modern Masters or a base set... except it was tournament legal. But not a big deal, IMHO.) SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Related to the above, I think I might merge some of the compilation sets & box sets as well, if there's no objection. Magic: The Gathering duel decks has had a notability tag on it for almost three years... I think these short articles would be safer merged together. SnowFire (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Player decks
Suggest in player articles to provide simple description of the decks he or she played in those tournaments, with citation to decklist or tournament report. ex. "He piloted a red-green Dragons deck in 2008 nationals."
Grand Prix in Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season articles
Currently, the Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season articles (e.g. Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season 2016-17) are organized chronologically, which makes sense. However, this leads to several sections of Grand Prix. More recent seasons simply title them all "Grand Prix". WP:MOSHEAD advises against this: "Section headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries for section edits will be ambiguous." Older articles try to solve this problem by explicitly listing the Grand Prix locations. However, this leads to such lengthy titles as Grand Prix: Philadelphia, Lyon, Auckland, Chicago, Bochum, Charleston, Taipei, San Antonio, Lisbon, Toronto, Nagoya, Indianapolis, Denver, Atlantic City, Singapore, Bilbao, Sydney, London. It seems to me that there should be a better solution. 786b6364 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments