Talk:Legends

I think that trivia information about packaging should be moved in the beginning. Furthermore I'd like to have information on packaging on every expansion: How it was packaged and what was included (like Legends rulecard).

Also all three Kobolds weren't functionally compatible. Crimson Kobolds and Crookshank Kobolds are, but Kobolds of Kher Keep are not as Rohgahh of Kher Keep gives them and not the others +2/+2.

You can edit articles, be bold :) --GeoMike 07:38, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Legends Hierarchy

"Please, log in and sign your edits. Then we can discuss "official" vs. "interpretation of official"."

The fact that i did not create an acount does not make my edits less valuable than yours. Check my contribution log if you need to be convinced that i'm taking this wiki seriously, but i feel i've earned the right not to justify myself.
In the official vs interpretation debate, the answer is simple: the family tree organisation is official because it's on the official Magic website. Your version, well, is just your version. Note that originally, there was a picture detailling the familly trees, but it, like many others, was lost when Wizards changed its website.

My main problem with your first revison of the family tree was this sentence:

"It was also proposed, instead of this simple hierarchy, a complex system of "family trees", where each one of the two-color legends is featured twice, just to make it look more complex."

This was purposefully insulting toward the original writer, an offcial Wizards contributor, just to make your own version seem better by comparison. I'll add that this is not the first time you used an arrogant and condescending tone to demean other peoples work (i.e, the Thopter page).

Since you've removed that line and restored the original wording, i won't waste my time fighting on the details of the presentation. Since the original infos are preserved, all is well and i consider the matter closed (i'll remind that if you that the original picture from the website is lost, meaning if you had actually removed the official version to replace it with your own, one of the last copy of the original Arcana post would have been destroyed). --78.203.253.117 10:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

IP editors are as valuable to the wiki as any account editor. I want to ask from a pure information perspective would you agree with the current presentation or would you say something is still missing here? - Yandere Sliver 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Like i said, i was more upset with the tone than with the content itself; as long as it's clear that the two-colors legends are part of two family trees each, its more a question of presentation than information, and it comes down to a matter of preference, so it's all the same to me. I'd like to insist once more that this wiki sometime has the last easily reachable copies of information that was lost when Wizards changed its website, wich make the content of pages relating to older sets particularly valuable, and changes to them should therefore be the subject of increased scrutiny. I appreciate the reactivity of the administrative staff, and i do think this matter can be considered closed.--78.203.253.117 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks for confirmation. Yes, the Wizard page re-structuring was very annoying we are still working in getting all links up and running again. :S - Yandere Sliver 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the website restructuration was/is a problem, but i'm actually talking about pages that had images that were lost in the transfert: there's a lot of Arcana articles about concept art for example that basically amount to "check out this concept art" followed by nothing but a blank page. The article about the Legends family tree is one such article, telling viewer "In the example below, the family tree is diagrammed[...]" with absolutely nothing below to see: i know for a fact (as in: i remember reading the original article) that there used to be a picture illustrating the article, but either its link got broken or it got outright deleted from the database in the conversion. That's the kind of information that i'm talking about when i say this wiki probably as the last copy of the original article easily accessible. --78.203.253.117 20:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I should have read the referenced article in the first place. Somehow, I couldn't see your contribution list from your IP only: hence my request. But probably it was just a connection problem. Sorry. --Abacos (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)