The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. No consensus that this fails WP:NOT. W.marsh 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords[edit]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a guide to playing Magic: the Gathering. The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been questioned whether this is a game guide or not. Here are examples (not all of them, just handful) of sections of the text that are game guide:

• Banding is an ability that has two parts. First, a player with banding creatures determines how damage is dealt to his or her creatures in a band (normally, the player dealing the damage determines this). Second, an attacking player may form 'bands' of creatures with banding (one non-banding creature could be included in a band). If one creature becomes blocked, the whole band becomes blocked as well, whether or not the defender could block other creatures in the band.
• Creatures with flying can't be blocked except by other creatures with flying and/or reach.
• This ability is written as "Protection from (quality)." A creature with protection from a quality cannot be enchanted, equipped, blocked, or targeted by anything with that quality, and all damage that would be dealt by a source of that quality will be prevented unless the damage can't be prevented (e.g. a creature with protection from red cannot be enchanted by red enchantments, blocked by red creatures, targeted by red spells and abilities, or take damage from red sources, barring exceptions which explicitly state otherwise).
• This ability is generally written as "Cost: Regenerate", and is an ability only held by permanents. When the ability is played, a "regeneration shield" is set up on the permanent. The next time that permanent would be destroyed, instead all damage is removed from it, it is tapped (if it is untapped), and removed from combat (if it is in combat). This ability is generally for creatures, though any permanent can be regenerated.
  
  This technically is not a keyword, but is instead a "replacement effect", much like damage prevention.
• This ability is written as "Cumulative Upkeep Cost". At the beginning of each of its controller's upkeep, an "age counter" is put on the card. Then the player must pay the Cumulative Upkeep cost for each age counter on the permanent or sacrifice it. The ability was originally designed to represent an ever-climbing cost, eventually forcing the player to sacrifice the card and lose its benefits, although later incarnations provide a benefit for the number of age counters on the card when it is put into a graveyard.

The "context" seems to be limited to explaining what set introduced such-and-such rule, and what set last used it. I hope the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "No it's not" arguments don't obscure the plain, unfixable problem that this describes the rules of game in detail for the sake of informing readers how to play a game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. TheRev 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Injected comment) The above comment was added by 203.87.127.18. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I love the game, but this is a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sections in the set articles discussing the development of new rules and keywords is fine, but just listing off the rules is not. Jay32183 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AMiB said it better than I could. Nifboy 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reluctantly. This is either a play guide or a glossary, and both fall under WP:NOT. Also, most of the terms are defined in the appropriate set/cycle articles. Expanding on that, including a line listing the other effects explicitly used in a set/cycle with links to the section of the article for the set where the effect originated serves the same purpose as this list. It may not be the best solution, but it allows the information be preserved and useful while staying within the guides. - J Greb 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I see this page as a list of definitions, useful most likely to people who don't play Magic, not as any sort of guide. Looking at Time Spiral, on the right is a long list of keywords that are in the set. Although some like "Echo", "Flash", "Flashback", "Kicker", "Suspend", and "Storm" all sound interesting and are perhaps a little indicative of what they actually do, most people who happen upon the article are going to be clueless. That's why we have this page. Rather than put little footnotes or additional sections in every Magic article, we link here. I don't see how that makes this a guide, since it does not "include instructions, suggestions or how-tos", is not a "tutorial, instruction manual, video game guide, or recipe." (WP:NOT#GUIDE 1) (After all, we have List of Internet slang phrases.) As some of you have said, the content is useful or "fine." In saying this, you should at least be voting Merge. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say this content was fine. I said discussing the development of rules and keywords in the relevant set articles was fine. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, so the list of definitions argument isn't valid. Jay32183 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however, there are plenty of precedents. Just pulling from arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang, List of Latin phrases, List of French phrases, List of elements by symbol. I don't have time to pore over the giant List of Lists, so those are my examples for now. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also irrelevant. We are under no obligation to hunt down every article that violates policy in order to delete a single article that does, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay32183 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not hunting down every other such page. I'm showing other, similar articles (one featured!) to back up my argument. And now I will point you to WP:AFDP#Tips on dealing with other material. This can be refactored into an article (or merged into many). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it can't. Game guides are game guides regardless of their locations, and lists of definitions are lists of definitions regardless of their location. The problem is what the material is, not how it is organized. Jay32183 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you say it should be deleted and anything in any article which explains what a keyword means should also be removed? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We are only discussing this article. Jay32183 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Observations:
                  1. The terms are, within the game, important and integral. That being the case, they need to be explained, even if that results in a portion of the game mechanics being given. This is at the very basic level of dealing with this game, the sets and the cards.
                  2. Without trying to invoke OTHERSTUF, it is reasonable to look at how other parlour games (board, card, and dice games) are handles. At a basic level, articles dealing with these topics need to cover the basic mechanics of the games. Not a detailed treatise a "How to win" by any means, but covering all the basics.
                  3. If, as is possible with an AFD, the potential results include renaming and/or merging, the the state of this information in other MtG articles is germane. Especially in light of how the back and forth between Jay and TI can be read. And Jay, please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position.
                     It reads to me that the position has been put forward that this material is either a Guide or Terms and, by WP:NOT, not proper for inclusion in Wikipeadia in any way or form. Since sections of this article exist in the set articles, in the same format, it would seem a reasonable conclusion that if this goes, those should go as well. Asking if that indeed is the position being proposed seems within bounds and a logical next step.
                • And just to restate where I'm coming from. I don't think this list, the article under discussion as a unified piece, fits as something Wiki is geared towards. The individual chunks by set though, as sections, do fit in writing encyclopedic article for each set. - J Greb 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the terms are important and integral, how have I played the game for a decade without having ever owned a Bands with Legends card? How is it I can teach people how to play with core set cards without ever needing to teach them what keywords do? If they're so integral, why does WOTC summarize the meaning of each word on many cards?
    This isn't integral to knowing how to play the game on a basic level. It's certainly not necessary for an encyclopedic overview of the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Polio was such a world-altering disease, why have I never met anybody who caught it? Why should we have an article on it? Answer: historical interest. Some of these terms aren't vital to the understanding of the game, but they do exist, were printed, and if we're going to have an article about keywords in MtG it should be complete in the terms it covers. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a filtered subset of what's "current." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you first started playing, did you instinctively know what each term meant? Did you know how to use it just by the term, without any instructions? When you first talked about the game and the cards with friends that had never played the game or seen the cards, did they instinctively know what the terms meant? An general use encyclopedic article should be written for the uninitiated, covering the information they'll need to know and may want to know. That includes explaining most jargon.
      If we are dealing with an "overview of the game", I tend to see that covering the main article on MtG, the core concept and game. And I agree, this list, in part or in its entirety, does not belong in that article. Nor should it be an article unto itself, as it is right now. I also don't think there should be individual articles for each mechanic.
      But if we are including the articles on the card sets in an "overview of the game", then I think we are talking about something different. Part of what is generally notable about the sets are the additions and changes made to the game with them, including the mechanics. It's in those articles that parts of this list should be. That's where the information should be clearly and succinctly explained for the guy who doesn't have the rules and is trying to make heads or tails of the game. - J Greb 08:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't instinctively know what the game terms did. That's why I read the instructions of the game. It is not the business of a general-purpose encyclopedia to duplicate the instructions to this game.
        The fact that many of the articles descend into such a technical level that a game guide like this is currently needed to understand them is largely a failing of those articles, not an indication that it's a good idea to put how-to guides on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, we're not teaching people how to play. We haven't presented them with a deck, and they're not physically holding the cards as we walk them through its contents. We have pages like Time Spiral, which say in the box "Keywords Buyback, Echo, Flanking, Flash, Flashback, Kicker, Madness, Morph, Shadow, Split Second, Storm, Suspend, Threshold" without much explanation in the article except for the three new keywords. But how will I know what "Flashback" means, especially when there's also "Flash?" This is what I'm saying. Yes, Wizards uses reminder text. "Bands with Legends" was never popular, and Banding and bands with have long been gone from Magic. I have one 5E card with Banding, and for years I had no idea what it really meant. I do disagree with the structure of this article, but not the content. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's a terribly good idea to be including that level of game detail in those infoboxes, either. It's not like it's the worst problem those often opinionated, largely unsourced, fairly technical articles have, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • lol, of course not in the infobox. I was thinking footnotes. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Description of how a game is played does not equal a game guide. Nor does a description of key concepts of the game. If you think this page is about strategy? I dunno how, but that could easily be fixed if somebody would identify what they have a problem with here, but don't on say, Glossary of American football or any other page on Category:Glossaries. Many other games have discreet concepts that can be described in the same way. If you wish to argue whether or not a page describing the terminology of a game is appropriate for inclusion, I think it obviously is encyclopedic material, but if you don't, then dealing with it piecemeal is not the way to do it. I suggest starting a discussion at the Village Pump. In this case, the history of some of the keywords could be included as well, such as for say, Flash, or the deprecation of banding. BTW, whether any given keyword is more or less important than others is not relevant. They're called keywords for a reason, namely it's easier to use a specific term than to individual write out the rules each time. If some keywords are more viable than others, that's a concept that should be dealt with by adding appropriate references for it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and if you really think it belongs elsewhere, perhaps you might want to propose moving to Wikitionary. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Detailed description on how to play a game is a game guide. (What else would game guide mean?) Wiktionary doesn't want game terms for contemporary games, in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page in no way can be construed as detailed description. In most cases, there aren't even mentions of specific cards, let alone when to play any of them. Or how to build a deck. At the level of description here, your argument would require the removal of almost all articles which focus on descriptions of how various games are played. That doesn't make sense to me. Such things are clearly encyclopedic and informative. Sorry, but I'm convinced you're really reaching to call this a game guide, and this is sadly, yet another demonstration of why the game guide section of WP:NOT is misused. Sorry, but it's not applicable in this case. If you want to find some clear examples of game guides, go check Category:Chess openings I think you'll find a lot of those are much more game guides than these page. Instead, I'd say this page is much closer in concept to Rules of chess than it is to a game guide. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When every aspect of MTG has been the subject of multiple books focusing only on that specific aspect, then we can start covering MTG in the same way that we cover chess. Chess is the subject of at least four centuries of published commentary and analysis, whereas MTG isn't 15 years old. The comparisons to chess are spurious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but WP:NOT clearly excludes things not based on whether they have been written about them, but on the content of the pages. So do me a favor and take a look at the pages. Look at them. Honestly tell me those pages aren't game guides. Tell me right now where the encyclopedic value can be found in: Portuguese Opening or Wing Gambit or Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4. I've looked. I've found nothing I'd consider encyclopedic about any of them. If you can find any, I'd say it's minimal in comparison to the instructional material present. But since you don't feel those are game guides, then so far, I can't see why you think this page is a game guide. Could you explain why you consider this a game guide, but not those pages? Otherwise, I'm going to have to say your nomination is biased. I hate to do that, but as I see it, you're using selective judgment and not considering these pages equally by the same standards. I'd like to assume good faith, but you're not acting in a non-biased way. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's possible to say a great deal about any given chess rule or gambit, sourced to good sources. Not so in this case.

As for my biases, augh, you caught me. I'm biased against articles that serve little purpose other than to explain how to play a game. Curse you and your tenacious investigation! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the former were true, then you should not be saying the problem with this page is a game guide. The lack of references issue is an entirely different question, one which would be addressable by adding sources. Your nomination doesn't even mention sources as a concern at all. If the latter were true, you'd be saying the same thing about the pages I pointed out. Sorry, but you're just not coming across to me in a way that convinces me your argument has actual merit. you're not even being consistent in your position. Explaining a game is quite valid information for an encyclopedia, whether that game be Baseball, Chess, Poker, or Magic the Gathering. If you do believe that information should be removed, then that'd be a mistake on your part, I think, but since you're not even consistent about it, I believe it's your perspective is flawed. Especially since you're retreating to the position but X has sources, when it's not the question of sources, but the concept and content of the page that matters as to whether or not something is a game guide. I've provided examples as to what I think is a game guide. Could you please address the question I've posed you about where that applies to this game? Or are you suggesting the deletion of rules of chess, chess terms and List of poker terms? Can you articulate how any of this is a game guide? Sorry, but all I'm seeing is your bare assertion of such, but that doesn't convince me of it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if those pages aren't game guides, or instruction manuals, or otherwise objectionable, then you only need articulate the differences, and we can then use that information to improve this page. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / (Weak?) Keep. I mostly disagree with the given reason for deletion. Simple examples as to what a keyword means is not game guide material (and more detailed diatribes can certainly be removed). Furthermore, this article incorporates some referenced development information; it could easily contain more (check the footnotes for some examples; there's some other sentences elsewhere, too, that are referenced by an external link directly after). It functions as a useful appendix for interpreting other Magic related articles; just because a keyword is discussed in an article on the set that originated doesn't mean that's the only place it can be discussed, since a keyword often spans many sets. This article is able to discuss a keyword's relevance throughout all Magic.

That said... the article's topic is of borderline notability, a better deletion argument in my opinion. I think that it makes the grade, barely, but I can certainly see a reasonable debate on that. If that argument is used, though, the proper course of action would be a merge into the Magic: The Gathering rules article, with a much-shortened keyword list there. SnowFire 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing the notability of Magic: The Gathering is rather silly. Millions of people play it. As an aspect of it, the keywords and rules are clearly important enough to merit coverage. I can't imagine any game where coverage of the rules isn't appropriate, and in this case, the new keywords are often a major aspect of the coverage of the release of a new set. If you wanted to argue for a merge, I think you'd run into the problem of this being a necessary daughter article of MTG, as the main article is clearly too large. So maybe you could put it into a rule of MTG article, but even then, I might say this belongs on its own page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, we could link to an offsite guide to playing Magic, since this is inappropriate game guide material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a guide because it doesn't include specific instructions to the reader, nor does it provide examples or "how-tos". It merely defines the keywords the article is discussing, which is necessary to put the rest of the article into perspective. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a game guide. Sorry. This is something I'd expect to see in a game guide: "This awkward development of the queen's knight does little to utilize White's advantage of the first move." or "Black often follows up with ...Qa5 and later ...e5 to challenge White's center. Black also sometimes expands on the queenside with ...b5." I can't find anything like that in this page, but if there were, then I wouldn't say that conceptually it'd be a problem. It would be easy to alter or remove any such statements. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article easily passes WP:NOT#GUIDE, as it contains more that just a rote listing of game mechanics. The article covers not only the keywords themselves but the history of the keyword, set in which the keyword was introduced, and in some cases the effects the introduction of a new keyword had on existing cards. I believe this falls well under the "analysis and critical commentary" criteria. Additionally, the mere listing of game rules does not make an article a "game guide"; the article is about the keywords present in the Magic: the Gathering card game, so it would make little sense to mention the terms without defining them. The article does not go into any great detail explaining the terms and does not provide any sort of "how-tos" or examples; if it had, that would be a game guide. As it is the article glosses over certain details anyway and does not even provide enough information to be used as an instruction manual, much less a game guide. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Magic: The Gathering might be a fairly new game, but it is a large game in terms of players playing it, and detailed coverage of the rules is therefore appropriate. (If you don't have the rules of the game, an important element of the coverage is lacking.) Large sets of rules (too large in my opinion, in fact so large that I have never been interested in learning how to play this) will mean a fairly large article, and spin-offs into separate articles. I will note that the lead in this article needs some rewriting, which should clarify the significance and context of these keywords. At the moment I can't really understand it, and even though I know nothing about this game I suspect that there is a lack of context. Do the keywords have a mechanical function in the game, or are they just an aid for quicker gameplay? When are these keywords called out? And finally, what is a keyword? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's that kind of constructive criticism which leads me to believe even more that this article needs to stay around. Sjakkalle also raises a good point: MtG contains a ludicrously complicated set of rules, more than any other game I know of. It should not be surprising then that there will be significantly more article space covering said rules than there would be covering, say, Chess. While chess is a very complex game, the rules themselves are fairly simple; as such we have very little room in the Chess article devoted to explaining the rules of the game. I believe that the amount of rules coverage we have for MtG is proportionally equivalent. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is a keyword?" Great point. That's something easy to miss as a Magic player editing Magic articles. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: Yukichigai has since cleaned up the article. There is now more development information in it, with the potential for even more. Hopefully this should blunt the criticisms that the content is unredeemably game guide-ish. SnowFire 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  None of my concerns have been answered. This is still a detailed guide on how to play the game, and requires a basic understanding of how to play the game in the first place to be comprehensible. The history added is trivial, and largely duplicated from the articles on individual sets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I will only say that I don't think those development notes are trivial - except (as noted above) in the sense that the article as a whole is a spinoff article from a spinoff article (the rules article, itself a spinoff from the main MTG article due to the length of the topic), and thus a little distanced from the core notability (the game itself). SnowFire 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The tendency you are describing is common to articles that have been split entirely too far and go into greater detail than is necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a symptom, not a diagnosis. If the article is "one spin too far" then you need to provide some kind of evidence, and so far I've not seen anything that indicates so. Yes, it is unusual for an article about game rules -- a sub-article in itself -- to have another sub-article associated with it, but as I've mentioned before MtG has an incredibly complex and large set of rules associated with it. The amount of coverage Wikipedia gives to MtG rules appears to be proportional to the volume of rules when compared to other games. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And a guide to playing MTG would indeed need to go into that level of detail. However, Wikipedia is not a guide to learning to play games, and the coverage should be in proportion to the volume and quality of the sources written on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, well, even ignoring the rather unsubtantiated claim about this being a game guide, and even assuming that coverage is done in proportion to the sources on the subject (I seem to have missed that policy document) this article should pass with flying colors then; there are literally thousands of third-party publications out there concerning MtG rules, MtG strategy, and related topics. (Numerous articles in the issues of Scrye and Inquest I've read over the years spring to mind, for one) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if it fails WP:NOT#GUIDE (which it doesn't), it fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY even more strongly Calgary 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to express how. This is not a list of loosely associated topics, a genealogical or phonebook entry, or a sales catalog. Sorry, but just claiming it's a directory is entirely unhelpful in this case. You'll have to give substantial reasoning to support the claim. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "directory?" All I can say is, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (A little Princess Bride is good for any debate) "Directory" implies that the article has no content other than links to other articles, or mere listings of terms. This article has significantly more content than a mere listing of the keywords and their definitions, as it often explains history and provides other, real-world context in some instances. (Bands with Other is a good example) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to nomination update - Now that AMIB has updated his initial nomination with some examples of what he considers "game guide" text, I'd like to respond. All of the text he is quoting there is part of a definition of terms. One cannot be expected to write about rules keywords without first defining them. Had the sections been further expanded to include specific gameplay examples it would be a game guide. As it is the article merely tells readers unfamiliar with the subject what the terms actually mean. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want this immediately below my addition, go right ahead.

  They are describing how to interpret rules summarized with a single word on game cards. That makes this a guide to understanding what the keywords mean on MTG cards. That's a game (MTG is a game) guide (this is a guide to knowing what the terms mean). I don't know how to break this down in a simpler way.

  A similar guide that told you what symbols mean in a video game would be deleted for the same reason, and it just so happens that MTG uses words instead of symbols. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Apples and oranges. Very few video games are likely to have sufficiently complex symbols as to warrant critical commentary. MtG, on the other hand, contains a number of rules which by their very nature contribute to the notability and appeal of the game itself. The introduction of new keywords and mechanics is part of what keeps the game popular. In order to discuss them, they must be defined, and they cannot be definied without stating what they mean. That is all the "game guide text" you have cited does. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any citations to critical commentary in reliable, non-primary sources in this article.

  "MtG, on the other hand, contains a number of rules which by their very nature contribute to the notability and appeal of the game itself. The introduction of new keywords and mechanics is part of what keeps the game popular." Source please?

  "In order to discuss them, they must be defined, and they cannot be definied without stating what they mean." They can easily be briefly defined in context, rather than devoting an entire page to describing them all, whether or not they bear discussion.

  Additionally, for each of the examples, the only commentary is when the keyword was first and last used, if there was any commentary at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I see absolutely nothing in the examples given that constitute a game guide or instruction manual, as there is nothing in the quoted examples that remotely resemble instructions any more than saying "Salt is a mineral commonly eaten by humans composed primarily of sodium chloride." is an instruction. I don't consider comparisons to video games especially needful since I've provided examples of pages that are comparable to this page (rules of chess, chess terms and List of poker terms) and no explanation of the difference between them has been made. Magic the Gathering is a CCG with a specialized vernacular built into the rules. If you accept that the rules of a game are subject to inclusion on Wikipedia, then the only question is how to cover them. This I think is an appropriate way to cover this aspect of the rules. Certainly better to present an overall picture than spreading the content out among the dozen sets. If you really must have a video game, the closest I can come is [Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms]. Which has had two AFDs, one closed as a keep, the other closed no consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as coverage goes, the fact that the keywords are covered by wizards.com is sufficient for me to agree, keywords are important within the game. Yes, wizards.com isn't a third-party source, HOWEVER, this isn't a notability question on its own, since the question of Magic's own notability is not in question. Thus the question becomes one of what within the subject of Magic is important to cover. Remember, this is a daughter article, and as such, doesn't stand on its own, but within the scope of the larger subject. If you really want third-party sources, I invite you to find them. Scrye I know has covered keywords in every new set released. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.