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)