Talk:Magic: The Gathering core sets, 1993–2007

Merge Revised and Summer Magic

I belive Revised and Summer Magic should be merged, I don't belive there is enough info out there on Summer Magic to warrent 2 articles. However combined, I belived that Revised could become a feature quality article with information from both. Alternate 4th Edition is combined with 4th Edition --Cloveious 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While the set consists of cards mirroring Revised, the same can be said for Beta and Unlimited. I think Summer Magic has a unique enough history and difference in notable cards (compared to Revised) to warrant an article of its own. I also think alternate 4th edition is a much more minor footnote in magic history compared to Summer Magic. Crimson30 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two. Summer magic's print run was identical to Revised, with no planned changes. It was not intended to be marketed as anything other than Revised, as seen on the external link, the booster pack is labeled Revised. In magic history, a print run that was largely recalled and unknown to the public could also be considered a minor footnote.-- Norvy (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bevelling

The article says

the three-dimensional beveling of the cards was cropped out.

could someone in some way change this sentense so it would be clear that this is the bevelling between the outer white border and the inner colored border? There are also three-dimensional bevels around the illustration and around the text box which are not missing in this set. Thanks. – b_jonas 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a visual comparison to show this beveling. -- User:Euclid316

Basic Land Cards

At http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/sixth.php it is noted that Sixth Edition boosters did not contain basic lands. However, Seventh Edition boosters did; I just bought a couple on my way home today. Thus, the article's claim that basic lands were re-introduced to core set booster packs with Eighth Edition was incorrect.

And, if you don't believe me, the presence of a basic land in 7th Edition booster packs is confirmed here: http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/seventh.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadibloc (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced content about Starters

This material was added to the article:

"Some little known facts about the starter decks are that they had 3 rares included in the very late print runs, up from two, as well as some decks that had all rares on the common card side of the rulebook. The first hand information I have leads me to believe a starter box contained no more than two of these "super decks", if through rare occasion they were in the box. This would make sense as the printing sheets would have left many extra rare cards leftover once printing was complete and rather than waste them, surprise a few lucky players."

It is unsourced, but anyway interesting (if it is not an april fool's joke). With some sources it would be nice to have this in the article, but right now it reads like a mix of speculation and original research. OdinFK (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering Core Sets, 1993–2007 → Magic: The Gathering core sets, 1993–2007 – "Core Sets" is a category in this sense, not a proper noun pbp 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC) pbp 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change of the white mana symbol with Fourth Edition

I think it's notable that the Fourth Edition was the first core set with a new white mana symbol. Compare this to this. I believe the first set with the new symbol was Ice Age, but I'm not 100% sure and I don't know if the gatherer is enough of a source.--Letkhfan (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

While the Gatherer is a valid source, it is also a primary source which most of the Magic articles are not in any need of. Secondary sources are of high priority on any Magic article and I recommend finding one of those instead. Ultimately, if you can't find one (which I'd be surprised if one didn't exist), you can use a primary source, though I don't think the Gatherer itself is ideal. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering core sets, 1993–2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629011251/http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities-summer.html to http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities-summer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge suggested

This page deals with the core sets, including Unlimited, which is just another version of Limited. Limited is basically a core set, even many of these early core sets weren't designated as such. Why is Limited omitted? Why isn't it merged here? Leitmotiv (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We actually discussed these a couple of years ago here. I think my arguments from back then are still valid, but on the other hand the name 4th Edition is a giveaway that Wizards considered Limited Edition to be of the same line of products as the other core sets as early as 1996. So this is not just an imposition we make today, because of the sets' similar look. It's probably also much more user friendly to combine these two articles into one. I still have my misgivings about the merge, but in the end doing it probably has more advantages than disadvantages.

The follow-up question would of course be if it makes sense to split the Core Set articles at all. If you accept that design principles change over time then there is really no reason to split at all. Sure, M10 was a major turning point because of the new cards, but so were Unlimited Edition (white bordered cards), Revised Edition (major rules overhaul), 6th Edition (major rules overhaul), 8th Edition (new card frame), 10th Edition (black bordered core set). That doesn't mean we split core set articles by core set design approach era. Those things change, but in the end these sets are all just core sets so maybe it is time to put them all into one article, where the user probably expects them, too? OdinFK (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I may have been involved in the original discussion, but have changed my stance... I would say they should all be merged: ABUR up to M19. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this? Thinking about it now, there only seem to be two reasonable solutions. Either have an article for each individual set (maybe aside from ABU), or have one for all. Everything else feels quite arbitrary. However, ease of use is probably much better if we clean up the individual sections (notable card sections...) and just lump them all together. That would also remove the need to rename the Magic: The Gathering core sets, 2009–2015 article every year. OdinFK (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Magic the gathering card comparison unlimited edition balance and revised edition armageddon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)