Talk:Ravnica (Magic: The Gathering)

71: 53: 738:"The works in which the subject is depicted are not independent of the subject." So, basically, if I understand you right, works that are independent of the subject don't mention the subject at all? Now, that is a very strange definition. And I don't think those other articles are poorly written. They do a good job of describing their subject, using only primary sources. So do thousands of other articles on Knowledge, such as 1233: 1158: 1083: 1008: 933: 22: 893:(and if they don't, the info needs to be merged into the set articles, because this has no possible claim of notability separate from the works themselves). We don't, in any event, need a separate article on the setting due to the lack of useful references and the lack of a need for a spinoff article. - 1207:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

1132:

1057:

982:

404:

It would be great to add in some illistrations of the land, etc. That way people can actually have a clue as to what it looks like, or what it is intended to look like. By showing the little sigils of the guilds and pictures of a couple cards doesn't at all help to orient you in the world of Ravnica.

336:

If all this is already in the article, then its pretty hard to understand and should be cleared up. as a complete noob, this makes no sense to me, and doesn't help me understand anything. remember, the world of Magic is pretty deep and extensive... what a lot of experienced hoobyists/players take for

863:

I also agree that this article may need cleanup. What I disagree with is that it needs to be deleted (or redirected, which is the same thing to the reader). And about guidelines, I'm making the case that they are not "generally accepted among editors", since so many articles ignore these guidelines.

1421:

Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance, and the upcoming War of the Spark sets, while all taking place on the same plane, are not being released as one 'block'. That term has a particular meaning in Magic: the Gathering, and it does not apply to any expansion sets released after Rivals of Ixalan, as

781:

novels. Fans have a tendency to confuse stories with information, so there are naturally going to be lots of articles in need of this sort of cleanup. Please stop wasting time linking other articles in need of the same cleanup as this article; there's no sense stopping the janitor from mopping one

1406:

Guilds of Ravnica block is the actually unofficial name of a series of three magic the gathering sets on Ravnica: Guilds of Ravnica, Ravnica Allegiance and an unnamed set. These are most recent sets that is related to Ravnica. Since I don't know how to build an totally new page. Can some one deal

597:

Just stop editwarring. You are the only one here who thinks that this content is inappropriate. This article is about major concept in Magic's storyline, and has huge impact on gameplay. This plane is detailedly described in several novels that go with the game. This is far more notable than some

282:

Remove the "Play Style" sections from some of the guilds; eventually use the "Values and Gameplay" thing instead. There's no real competitive deck based soley on the guilds, so I don't think its relevent. The later, on the other hand, works as both a thematic and informative

1282:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on

302:

Damn right, scumbag. I did a huge rewrite a few months earlier, but I regret to say I've been a bit lazy latley. Play style is entirely OR, and was incorrect in places. I'll have a go at rewriting the guild descriptions before Rosewater has our legs broke.

598:

random Pokemon. Several editors, who actually play the game (and thus, are experts on the topic) disagree with your accessment of this article, yet you continue to ignore them. Please, start improving Knowledge, instead of deleting what's already there.

188:

I removed the extraneous text from the Gruul description (which referred to images on the original page). The text is actually that which is included with the theme decks; there shouldn't be anything wrong with transcribing a freely-available blurb.

332:

Could someone add what exactly is Ravinca in the real word, i.e. where the story originated, and what exactly it has to do with Magic: the Gathering stuff, how exactly does Ravinca come into play? what exactly is this term used for within Magic?

457:. It makes no reference to the real world (except for game-guide material, of course) after the first sentence. Instead, it describes the fictional world as though it were real, describing story and setting as history instead of plot summary. 878:

Those editors are merely ignorant of the preferred style on Knowledge, and writing in a typical fannish style. The prevalence of typos and factual errors on Knowledge does not mean that typos and factual errors are de facto endorsed, does

884:

Now, I redirected this article because it contained the in-universe info an article on the block would, while containing pretty much no useful out-of-universe info. If we're going to have an article on the block, distilling

917:

This has to be one ofthe worst articles on Knowledge. Knowledge is meant to be written as if it were in the third person. However this sounds more like a blog than an dictionary or encyclopedia. Anyone second me on

464:. It doesn't even do a very good job of explaining where any of this came from. (I know it's from the Ravnica-block card flavor text, the fatpack guides, and the novels, but those are all primary sources.) 690:

The subject in question is a plane in Magic multiverse. Everything in the real world is independent of it, really. And yes, we do indeed parrot published novels in many articles across Knowledge. See

819:

If you're looking to make a case that all of these guidelines don't apply, you need to make a case that this is some sort of exception, because this is currently exactly the sort of thing that

1423: 1279: