User talk:LegacymtgsalvationUser1033/Archive1

Facts on sets

GeoMike, I appreciate your formatting and other help with the sets and expansions, but I would argue against your removal of "uninteresting" facts. That seems to be a judgement call on your part that may not be shraed by all. Bamooore 20070406

The facts I removed were ones like "xxxxxx is the only treefolk in yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" or facts like "ssssssssssssss has the biggest power and toughness of a green creature in ttttttttttttttt". That doesnt seem interesting. That is like saying I am the only frechmen where I work or I am the tallest in my house. See what I mean? --GeoMike 23:45, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

I know what you removed and I find it unnecessary for you to censor what is not off topic by deleting what others may and DO find interesting. early expansions especially had some oddities in what was printed, and I am only trying to bring those ideas to light for those who are interested in hearing about it. I would think your immediate family might be interested to know you are the tallest, or your coworkers might want to know what a diverse environment they are a part of, although you may not receive a prize for it. I don't delete sections describing the history of the Protour because I am not interested in reading them. Bamooore 20070613

It makes the pages really long, is there any way we can link your information to shorten the main articles? --GeoMike 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I Suggest you divide the trivia into "super records and set records, meaning that one page covers the extremes and a page for each set can cover the rest. I have already adressed that some pages should simply be taken apart and become several pages to make for an easier pageskimming towards information that appeals to your personality... Faceless Wanderer 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I give up on this topic --GeoMike 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: prerelease cards

It's an interesting article, I hadn't realised how far back the promo cards went. I'm happy I was able to contribute, keep up the good work. Silver Surfer 12:43, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Articles I Want To Start

• Booster Pack
• Starter Deck

Sure, why not! ;) Excellent suggestion, just be sure to have decapitalized article titles (Booster pack, and Starter deck - and heck, have redirects to the respective articles on the capitalized pages.) MM (talk!) 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• "*Enchant world - I wonder if we need this now after I found the World article."

I suppose a merge of the content on Enchant world and World could be done, and a redirect could be made on "Enchant world". GeoMike, feel free to create articles and use 'actual' pages. ;) MM ^(talk!) 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles I've started off of my age are incomplete and just "thoughts" (sometimes random ones). Thanks for your encouragement. --GeoMike 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note - I think the Statistics and trivia page can be expanded way beyond believe, just thinking of things to add.

Prerelease (cards)

"Rukh Egg — 8th Edition, February 17, 2003." Are you certain this is the date of the 8th Edition Rukh Egg, GeoMike? I added a second Rukh Egg, and I am not sure which one you've got there - I added the 8th Edition 10 Years of Magic celebration one. MM (talk!) 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not certain about the date. Do you think the "release cards" should have their own page? Now the article isn't just about prerelease cards. --GeoMike 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a check and it appears that Rukh Egg is only a release card. As for "release cards" having their own page, if you're fine with that, I'll also be fine too; after all, now it's not just about prere cards. With regards to the article title, do you want to move it to Prerelease cards, and create a redirect? MM (talk!) 10:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Prerelease cards as the article name as its not so much about the Prerelease event just the cards given out. I'd like a seperate page for Release cards. I think both articles should have a "See also : " and reference the other page just for ease of cross referencing. I'm glad you found out about 8th Edition. I did attend a global event but I didn't remember if it was prerelease or release myself. --GeoMike 11:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. If it's not already up, I'll create it and move the appropriate content over. Also, I'd like to thank you profusely for your sheer presence here, and even more for your help that you have offered. :) Also, perhaps I'll move and redirect the existing Prerelease (cards) article, and fix the double redirect. If you object, I'll revert my edits, okay? :) --MM (talk!) 06:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I really enjoy contributing. I wish there were more contributors / editors. I posted the question on the forums about having a standard for headings in expansion sets but only you and one other has responded so far. I don't feel like that is enough of a consensus to make changes yet. I have no objections to anything you've done / will do. Thanks for all your comments. --GeoMike 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you again, effusively, for your involvement and contributions to the sets. Aside from this, I am obliged to agree (well not as such), not only because it is your opinion, but it is the truth; there are a lack of contributors. Of course, you did not say this, per se, but one - like myself, who often does this - can construe it thusly. Again, thank you for all your hardwork. Happy editing. MM ^(talk!) 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its my pleasure - wish there were other major contributors. --GeoMike 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Adbots

Good question, Mike. The CAPTCHA thing can be coded in, but I think that requires Hannes' work. I would do so, if I knew how to and could do so, though. Thanks for your concern. ^M_M ^(talk!) 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this matter is being seen to. Time is required to process matter. Thanks. :) ^M_M ^(talk!) 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref templates

Feel free to use them. If you have any suggestions on improving them, just say! :)
The use of templates makes referencing consistent and congruent. (For mtg.com articles, you can use that {{MTGref}} template. ;)) ^M_M ^(talk!) 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to use those templates ?: --GeoMike 11:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

MTGref

{{MTGref|THE_END_BIT_OF_THE_URL,_E.G._mr1|ARTICLE'S TITLE|AUTHOR OF ARTICLE|DATE}}

"THE_END_BIT_OF_THE_URL" is pretty much the author's initials and the article number for that author, as I've observed. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to use it on the Masters Edition (set) page but I don't think it works with the card tags they are using, either that or I'm not doing something correct. --GeoMike 14:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

sorting tables

i was wondering if you guys would be interested in sorting tables? i found this on wikipedia: look here.

Far as i can tell, if you are interested in having a sortable tables, "importScript('User:TimR/sorttable.js');" to MediaWiki:*.js, where * is the skin you wish to have them on. Signed: bud0011 (Talk to me | See my other contributions) 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. (Also, I've corrected "interested". =) ) ^M_M ^(talk!) 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name (set) v. Article name, w/ disambig.

I was just wondering whether we should move all the disambiguation pages for sets/blocks/cycles/cards to actual disambiguation pages, with disambiguation following the disambig. page's name, and move all set page to the main namespace.

Basically, what I'm proposing is that we move, for example, Lorwyn moved to Lorwyn (disambiguation) and Lorwyn (set) to Lorwyn, and then add one of the many disambiguation templates to the Lorwyn (now about the set) article. This way it's easier to access the page, without adding the (set) set; I've noticed that the set articles receive more traffic than others, too, and the only reason disambiguation pages receive any hits, by any chance, is that people type in the set name itself.

With this, I see a couple problems - a key one is the problematic linking and possible creation of double redirects. Any thoughts? ^M_M ^(talk!) 06:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the set pages would receive many more hits and should be without (set). We can find all the double redirects via the Special pages link in the toolbox on the left-hand side. --GeoMike 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike, if it wouldn't be too much, could you move the disambig pages (for sets/blocks/cycles) to their respective (disambiguation) page, and the set pages to the main namespace, please? You could get MORT to help out, and maybe others; I'm sure they'll understand. Thanks. Right now, I'll just move the latest set/expansion/cycle ones and fix the redirects, and to make them direct links, including the Sets template. ^M_M ^(talk!) 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it myself as quickly as I can (during lunch, after work). --GeoMike 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by, to say that I like these changes. Good job pals. (I corrected some sets, and adjusted Template:Sets) --^MOR_T ^(T) 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ~ and Thanks for your help, appreciated :) --GeoMike 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another heading on sets?

Reprinted cards

This would list cards reprinted from previous sets, and why they were reprinted for this particular set.

Under the Lorwyn entry, we'd list Fertile Ground and why it was reprinted.

Under Fifth Dawn, we'd list Circle of Protection: Artifacts and Relic Barrier and why they were reprinted.

Input on this new heading? Like it? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeoMike (talk • contribs).

I do like it very much. However, I'm not sure if we always can tell why specific card was reprinted. --^MOR_T ^(T) 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - but we will make our best guess if we can :) --GeoMike 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing templates

I've created a bunch of them, as you can see in the Announcements and its archives. Their functionality is fairly easy, and it more or less facilitates in standardizing referencing, giving a cleaner and uniform look. So anyway, for Magic columns, like MaRo's one or any of the daily columnist's one, it's {{MTGref|Template:... ah heck; excuse me.

Here's a link to my "Templates and Template Guide. It's fairly incomplete, as you may gather, and I haven't updated or kept up to scratch with it.

Hopefully it helps, though. :) ^M_M ^(talk!) 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Line above Card Types template

I just removed it before seeing that you added it today. I'm not a fan of it, but that's mostly because footer templates on Wikipedia don't use them. If you want to revert it, that's fine.

I also cleaned out the redundant information on Card types. Whew. Merope 13:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think the line sets off the template a little from the article and looks, at least to my eye, pleasing. Kudos to you for removing the redundant information Card Types, looks great! Thanks :)

Renaming theme decks

I thought we were moving away from having (set) and (deck) after article titles. Also, I added them into the Theme Deck article and didn't link them using (deck) so I just moved them over rather than create redirects. I'm fine with them being moved back, of course, though I think that they look better without (deck). I'm happy to move more articles for consistency, if necessary. Merope 16:21, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

I don't think a decision had been made on (deck), but I'll go either way. --GeoMike 17:45, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

User talk:Magic Mage/Lorwyn

Any thoughts? Opinions?

... about the tokens, I can't get any similar-looking tokens for the 4/4 green Elemental creature token, the 3/3 green Beast creature token, the */* white Avatar creature token, and the 4/4 white Elemental creature token with flying; I do, however, as you can see, have their artworks, per se. Do you like them? ^M_M ^(talk!) 07:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your article about Lorwyn looks much better then the original article, Lorwyn. The article on Lorwyn is going to be huge. Are we going to go back and flesh out the other expansions and make them just as long? --GeoMike 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know; but I do know that several of the older expansion articles need some improvement - at least enough to get them out of being considered stubs. It'd be great to see further, or perhaps similar, development on the articles, but there's always bound to be constraints. I've moved content from my "sandbox Lorwyn" page to "Lorwyn". I also fear that it may be a bit long; the software tells me it's 47Kb's long, so it may be quite a hassle to edit and load. Maybe breaking it down into sections is an option, but that would mess with the references. ^M_M ^(talk!) 03:41, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Yes it is long - I guess size does matter. I'm not sure what this means under Planeswalkers "Blah, di blah, di blah, di blah, di blah;

Blah, di blah, di blah, di blah, di blah; Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah...

I forgot which tune this is meant to be hummed to; it's by Beethoven or someone... maybe from the Baroque/Romantic period. I forget. Maybe you could tell me. " Is it some random stuff? --GeoMike 10:13, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

That's just a placeholder.

But, true, I forget what I was going to type there. I had prepared a lengthy wad of text for the section, references and all, and then when I tried to save it, it said that the session had expired, much to my ire.

Sorry for the randomness, by the way. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:02, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

The information regarding Clash on the Lorwyn page is long, maybe most/some of it could be moved to the Clash page? --GeoMike 10:15, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Maybe. I'd just keep a short summary, and wherever there's an unnecessary duplication of the info on the Clash page, I'd remove it. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:02, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Why aren't the vivid lands the same size? Or at least the bottom two aligned under the two above them? --GeoMike 10:21, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

I don't really know, GeoMike. It works fine in my browser (Firefox; I've checked it with Opera, and it's also fine there. I've yet to check it with IE, v6, though.). I just uploaded the images that were in the vivid lands Arcana article and altered them so that they'd at least be 200 pixels wide.

Would you be able to, say, take a screenshot to illustrate the issue? That'd be great; thanks. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:02, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

It mightn't be possible right now, without reverting; I've replaced the five individual images with a single image - I see a couple problems with it, though; one of which is the difference in size. To overcome this, I guess ripping the artwork off the individual cards is the only way - easy, but feasible. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:08, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Right now, I am cropping the artworks from the cards loaded at magiccards.info; it's pretty good that the arts are fairly large.

Please, do give me your opinion on it. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:13, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Done! How's it now? I've also made a template out of it; it's Template:Vivid lands. Much easier to alter... ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:32, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Beautiful! Great job! --GeoMike 12:33, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

You've done a great job on Lorwyn, don't get me wrong. You must really like the set?? --GeoMike 10:22, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

Cheers. As for the latter remark, a question, I don't really like it, nor do I loath it and treat it as though an anathema or something of the like. I must really have too much time is a probable reason; it's a chance.

As I've iterated time and time again, I don't play Magic and have little to no involvement in it - oh, excluding this wiki. I keep up to date, with some degree of belatedness, with the forums (used to) and MTG.com for content to update the wiki with. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:02, 3 November 2007 (GMT)

To be honest, I don't really have an opinion on Lorwyn; I like the pretty arts - some of them; other arts border stupid and comic, and fantasy. ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:13, 3 November 2007 (GMT)