Talk:List of real-world people depicted on Magic cards

Known depictions without personal features

Should this list include depictions where the person/character is known but the likeness is not included? The Jurassic World card Don't Move depicts Alan Grant's back, as indicated by the hat, but no discernible features of Sam Neill. Would that card be listed alongside Ellie and Alan, Paleontologists? -- RivalRowan (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's very subjective and I'm open to the alternative but I've only been using cards where some part of the face is visible. Three Visits (Doctor Who) does depict the character of the First Doctor, but it's tough to say it depicts the actor William Hartnell. But then again it sort of does? Open to discussion. RudleyDudley (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with a no-face-no-mention policy. -- RivalRowan (talk)

Split off Doctor Who

The Doctor Who references are so extensive it may be about half the page of itself. The page will only get larger, so that should be a clean split off; any future works of similar magnitude could probably do with their own subpage. Not that I'm betting that there will be, the confluence of depth, popularity, and live-action-ness is quite improbable at this stage. 114.76.198.69 22:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree here. Yes the page will continue to grow but the list is by the person appearing, not where they appear. What happens when, for example, Karen Gillan shows up as Nebula in a Universes Beyond: Marvel product? She would be listed twice, once in Doctor Who and once in Marvel. I'm not sure that makes it easier for a reader to understand. Individual set pages can handle that sort of information. We can split the page alphabetically if it gets too long (e.g. Token/Full List A-F, Token/Full List G-M, etc.) -- RivalRowan (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with not splitting, at least until the page becomes too large. I prefer a comprehensive list, like List of illustrators, unless it's really necessary to split. RudleyDudley (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

So, are we adding these? They're inspired by the historical figures, but WotC has said they're specifically depictions of the video game characters. That said, the video game characters were (fictionalized) depictions of the historical figures as well. Originally they weren't added, now Socrates has been added, I don't have a strong opinion either way but I'd lean yes - it's going to be a constant war of adding and removing unless at least a note is added, and they clearly depict at least roughly what the figures looked like. Happy to hear thoughts. RudleyDudley (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over since editor 199.204.58.32 added Sokrates, Athenian Teacher. I think our problem is in justifying the non-inclusion to new editors when the historical figure is already listed. Socrates was in the list via Vizzini, Criminal Mastermind. To a new editor, why wouldn't Sokrates, Athenian Teacher also fit in? It's a card depicting them. It's even got their name in it this time. And if you're not familiar with the Assassin's Creed franchise, how would you know the difference? Based on this, I think we have to accept that historical figures, even if they're not the real-life versions but video game specific characters, need to be included. Otherwise we're just going to be edit warring over this. -- RivalRowan (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ghazban revert

The previously-linked citation is a Youtube video, with a scene comparing a cropped photo of Nicoloff with the original sketch for the card, showing a clear likeness. The later sketch that became the final illustration bears less resemblance, as the figure was made more "ogre-ish", but along with the rest of the card's history, I think it's still reasonable to say that the card depicts Nicoloff. Corveroth (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand the history and maybe it's worth noting in some way, but I don't really see how it's any different from cards where someone was used as a pose model but the face was drawn differently. If those were included, nearly every magic card would appear on this list. Not to mention, while burying the history feels wrong, saying that a woman is depicted on a card that in actuality depicts a monstrous ogre feels like it may reinforce the "joke". RudleyDudley (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

To me it's sort of an edge case when it comes to the arbitrary rules set for this list. The art was based on her likeness but then heavily modified to the point someone would sooner recognize the hair. But I also think that wiki pages should be useful and this list would be the best place to include this card and other cards like it (assuming there are more). Maybe the rules for the list are too restrictive, if they can't include this card. Maybe the rules could be widened for noteworthy people (even if their appearance is heavily modified, but they're depicted in some manner). "nearly every magic card would appear on this list" - only if those likenesses were documented (and then it would make sense to include them on such list, or to restructure it or split it if it grew so large). "feels like it may reinforce the "joke"" - for one, Nicoloff made peace with it, so to speak, and secondly, whether one takes it as a joke or a part of unfortunate history solely depends on one's maturity. Something out of our control and overall not a good reason to exclude it, imo. Ontos (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The rules are arbitrary and I'm entirely open to discussing them. To give an example for "nearly every magic card would appear on this list", here's an article on Jason Rainville's process for Storm the Seedcore. Would you say that card depicts him ~11 times because he used himself as a model for each of the figures? Many Magic artists post similar processes for their works that include photos of their models. Until now, only art where the model's face was explicitly depicted in the card has been included in this article. Expanding the rule would mean that all of those cards should be included. RudleyDudley (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I do agree - Jason's 'appearances' on that card should not count here (because in the end, he didn't appear on it). What I had in mind was taking the meaning of the page title to its logical conclusion. While Jason used himself as a reference, he didn't mean to portray himself on that card. Contrastedly, they meant to depict and make fun of Nicoloff, even though they've later heavily changed her likeness. So to formalize it more - I'd be looking for documented intentions of depicting real-world people. When someone's face is used, then the intention doesn't have to be spelled out - it's implied. When there is no face to go by, but the intention is otherwise documented, I think it would be useful to have such cards on the list as well.

I don't have any other example at hand, so I'll use a hypothetical. The 1996 World Champion art and card were created before the tournament and handed to the winner in a trophy. But let's imagine it was created later on and the artist said he meant to depict Tom Chanpheng, even though you wouldn't be able to tell from that image. Then I think it would be useful to know and should count too. Ontos (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I can see what you mean and to be fair that is essentially how I treated examples like Gavin Verhey — although it's nowhere near a picture-perfect representation of him, the artist is clear on who it's depicting. There is a slight issue that to my knowledge the artist hasn't said who he meant to depict on the card, although we obviously know. This does shift the policy toward essentially how the "depicted" section of in-game references works, which could also mean including depictions that don't directly show a character's face. I can't say I have a strong opinion on this and would be willing to hear others' thoughts. RudleyDudley (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)