Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)

Untitled

Removed: Lightning Bolt itself was a recurrence from the weaker sorcery and bouncable version printed in Legends as Chain Lightning. Because: It is incorrect, lightning bolt existed in the base sets since the founding of the game with Alpha. As such Chain Lightning from Legends was a recurrence of Lightning Bolt. Similarly a secondary reason is that this sentence did not fit with the topic, which was Incerate. If it is deemed important to include something along the lines of: Incerate from Ice Ages was the second functional reprint lightning Bolt, a staple red spell from the base set. The first recursion of Lightning Bolt, though each version has changed the card slightly, was in the Legends expansion and called Chain Lightning. Personally I think it clutters the article and doesn't clarify anything though.--68.231.168.20 19:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Swords to plowshares, It was a base-set card.

Fair use rationale for Image:Exp sym ia.gif

Image:Exp sym ia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Alliances (Magic: The Gathering)

We don't need an article on every expansion set. There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these. Doing it by block would be better. p b p 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Coldsnap (Magic: The Gathering)

We don't need an article on every expansion set. There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these. Doing it by block would be better. p b p 19:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on whether each expansion should have its own article

There is a clear consensus to merge Magic: The Gathering expansion sets into blocks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should articles on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets be merged into blocks? p b p 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This request was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment for one month - from 30 July 2013 to 29 August 2013.[1] -- Jreferee (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Survey

Support merge p b p 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but if it is to be done, all the blocks should be done together to avoid reversals. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per the statement bellow, if the articles would be notable enough or well sourced, but wikipedia does not accept content fork with issues WP:CFORK. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I don't really see enough independent content on the different articles to justify having multiple pages. Subsectioning the main article would probably suffice up, with main topical categories that then have paragraphs for each individual expansion pack if necessary. Metheglyn (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Articles that would be notable enough or are well sourced can be discussed individually if there is a desire to merge them. Otherwise, a general approach to merge subtopic articles on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets listed at Category:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets as subsections into their likely parent article would be reasonable. There are 60+ articles listed at Category:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets and appears that there are a good number of Magic: The Gathering expansion sets articles that do not meet acceptable types of forking per WP:CFORK. Allow Purplebackpack89 to make individual merge determination on the Magic: The Gathering expansion sets and perform merges as needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There are currently articles on each new Magic: The Gathering expansion set. Many of them. I'm beginning to think we don't need all those articles, and we should do things by block (i.e. Alliances and Coldsnap merged to Ice Age, Legions and Scourge merged to Onslaught). Much of the "content" of these articles are either unsourced or sourced with sources affiliated with Wizards of the Coast. A large part of the content is unsourced trivia. They're really written more like Wikia articles. When you strip away all the trivia and such, you're only left with a couple KBs of. Anybody agree with me that we should merge this articles? p b p 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]