MTG Wiki talk:Lore Policy

Proposed amendment re: cards as sources

Following this discussions regarding Special Guests, Niv-Mizzet, and this preceding Discord conversation (messages from July 6-7), I think we need an update to the policy regarding cards as lore sources. I'll suggest the following.

---

Replace:

• Some specific cards: ❌ Special Guests cards and test cards are non-canon representations of their subjects.
• New h3 heading: Cards as lore sources
• Most parts of a card are not reliable lore sources, because they are subject to mechanical gameplay constraints. Flavor text and art are not constrained in that manner, are the most likely to be reliable. However, artwork may vary widely, even discounting Secret Lairs and similar exceptions. Card names, especially of recurring characters, may contain a variety of epithets not attested anywhere else, simply due to the requirement that English card names be unique. Type lines shift due to changing development practices, or for undocumented reasons, and are limited by the size of the card. Color identity may change, sometimes repeatedly and often. Mana value, power, toughness, and rules text are almost entirely unrelated to lore.

• Special Guests: ❓ Special Guests are "shown through the lens of the set", and "it does not mean that they're canon". This ambiguity means that Special Guests cards are not reliable sources for lore, and cannot be used to support lore statements.
• Test cards: ❌ Test cards are not canon.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corveroth (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 July 2025.

To be clear, Multiverse Legends cards are not Special Guests as they preceded Special Guest cards and were specifically handled differently for MOM. Cards like Judith, the Scourge Diva or Juri, Master of the Revue have flavor text (as many MUL cards do) mentioning their involvement in the war and are effectively used on their character pages as a secondary source to a supporting article. Cards like Niv-Mizzet Reborn (Multiverse Legends) could not accommodate additional flavor text, but it can be just as relevant as pointed out in the Niv-Mizzet discussion. In some cases, cards can be used as a reliable source, especially if bolstered by supporting articles or stories as the MUL cards here do.--Nivmizzetreborn (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be willing to add a bullet point regarding the MUL cards establishing the presence of those characters. Flavor text is already called out as one of the most reliable parts of the card. Corveroth (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

A few notes from me:
1) Even though it's implied in the "Sources" section of the policy, I think we should call out that if there are other supporting sources that can be cited, then this section doesn't apply/isn't relevant. It's primarily for situations where there aren't other sources. So in the case of Multiverse Legends, we have official statements from game designers that these are representations of those characters during New Phyrexia's Invasion of the Multiverse.
2) I am slightly concerned that saying "Most parts of a card are not reliable lore sources" means we need to remove the color(s) section of character infoboxes as mana costs are "subject to mechanical gameplay constraints." I'm not against that, but I just wanted to clarify if that was the intention. In theory, the same would be true for supertypes, types and subtypes and would mostly affect creature classes.
3) Secret Lairs need their own section. Generally the Magic community appears to treat them as non-canon because they have Universes Beyond depictions (which are out of scope for the Wiki), real-world references, ambiguous or stylized art, or have unique takes on story. But not all of them do. Are they out as a category?
-- RivalRowan (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, I guess the question changes to what the infobox tries to convey. Is it lore accurate information? Or is it to show how the character is depicted in the game as a card? They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Using the mana cost or power/toughness as source in the body of the text is what should be avoided. However, there is another problem with using art as a source as it is highly affected by the interpretation of the editor. Take a card like Mind's Eye (Battlebond) which has a metallic device in front of the character which Scryfall tagger identifies as a Selesnya symbol. However, the Selesnya symbol has 7 branches instead of the 5 shown and almost never metallic (it being metallic is already my own interpretation). Looking at a similar symbol on Emmara, Soul of the Accord shows the proper amount of branches. However, this is not always consistent (see Isolate with undefined/variable symbolics or Heroes' Reunion with even nine branches on the cape!). Thus it's not always clear what is actually being depicted and their inclusion as a source is at the editor's own discretion. I think it is important to think about how rigorous this policy should be. In my opinion, only well defined properties (as objectively as possible) should be used for art as source, but this is not always so clear and cut, there will always be corner cases. --Ilaro (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit: While thinking about this, I do want to comment about my own objectivity part. It's a fine line to thread, because it can get silly really fast. Does Solar Blaze depict Parhelion II? It is not written down anywhere. Some artist have shared the art direction, but this is not the case for the vast majority of cards. Would anyone object using Solar Blaze for the Parhelion II? I don't think so! The wiki shouldn't operate on a policy where all art is removed just because there isn't any secondary source for the art's depictions. Editors should be able to use certain art at their own discretion. --Ilaro (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Loremaster weighing in here - I think it's helpful to point out the realities of Magic cards as a game piece, but I might say that Magic card is a game piece first and a lore source second, and that ludonarrative constraints apply. But I want to be really clear that it's okay to reference important markers (types, colors, etc). Also: there's sometimes just continuity errors or other issues with the lore sections of the cards. To respond to some of the other notes here: Multiverse Legends is canon. Secret Lairs are a case by case basis. I wouldn't reference any of them unless supported elsewhere, for instance, Savor the Moment (Secret Lair Drop) IS canon, it was confirmed later that Tomik and Ral had married. As for who is in art, I think it's reasonable to let editors use their discretion, it's better to remove errors than to be too restrictive. - VorthosJay(talk) 00:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Category

Minor, but this page should have category Category:MTG Wiki policies like the other policy pages do. - jerodast (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Just confirming, post-change. It should, yes. It now does. -- RivalRowan (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)