Bazaar of Baghdad[]
I see no mention of the card anywhere. It is at least restricted in Legacy. Anyone know when that happened ? I don't play or follow Legacy, just was curious about the history of the card : nothing here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluncy (talk • contribs).
- I think the answer is hidden in note 46 (September 2004) http://www.wizards.com/Default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040901a --Hunter (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. There are 27 cards that are either banned or unbanned ! On the other hand it's not ideal that people would come to the page and don't see that Bazaar of Baghdad and Mana Drain were actually affected by a B&R announcement at least once. I mean it makes sense, I come to the page I search for a card's name, if I don't find any occurrence it follows that it's never been restricted or banned. So what do you people think ? We could do the entire 27 cards entry (after all for the creation of modern there's a 21 cards entry; and it's not annoying to browse. Or if that's a problem, write something like [Bazar & Drain banned, and 25 other cards either banned or unbanned]. --Eluency (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
crystalkeep[]
Here are two links to a search in the crystalkeep MtG database using the keyword "restricted". They show all the cards that were restricted (many of them were subsequently banned) from the very beginnings to 2006. Crystalkeep is the site of Stephen D'Angelo, WotC Judge who wrote the Oracle errata and wording until that year. Many results showed here still are not listed in the timeline of DCI bans and restrictions. A few results are spurious.
http://www.crystalkeep.com/cgi-bin/magicsearch.cgi?cardName=&cardColour=&cardType=&creatureType=&rarity=&cardText=&rulingText=restricted&expansion=&pageNum=0&numCards=90 http://www.crystalkeep.com/cgi-bin/magicsearch.cgi?cardName=&cardColour=&cardType=&creatureType=&rarity=&cardText=&rulingText=restricted&expansion=&pageNum=1&numCards=90
Dead link. I thought the site was dead for years. What you might be looking for is https://web.archive.org/web/20051210071848/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/summaries.php where you can download the html in zip (also https://web.archive.org/web/20010305103445/http://www.activesw.com/~sdangelo/magic/rule-cards.html not 2006 unfortunately.) --Eluency (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverse order[]
This article is great, but I think it's less direct than it could be. I imagine that visitors are more likely to be interested in the most recent changes to the B&R list than they are the earliest bannings. As such, I would like to rewrite this article in reverse chronological order. However, I am open to discussion as to whether it should be reversed on the scale of years, or with finer granularity. (examples removed for brevity) --Corveroth (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- If we're going to reverse it, it should be on the monthly scale. —Fenhl 04:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree. I believe that players "interested in the most recent changes to the B&R list" will go to magic.wizards.com and search there or just google "mtg banned list" and end up going to this page. There, WotC maintains a current and valid list. I believe the purpose of this article is to register the history of the bans and restrictions, and as usual, it should not be reversed. --Ltlombardi (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I second that. Also the beginning of MtG is much more crazy and funny regarding B&Rs and makes for a more alluring page. And a timeline is a timeline, no need to make this into a Timeline/latest B&R. People can do that on their own, they know to scroll downwards and upwards.--Eluency (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think we have a much broader purpose than maintaining one list, but you otherwise have a reasonable argument. Many of the few (just 28, in the main namespace) links to this page come from articles linking it with the text "banned" or "banned list" (banned list is in fact a redirect here), or as a "see also" link under a discussion of a format's bannings. How do you feel about expanding this article to more directly address those uses? This would leave the body of the article unchanged, with only a new lede, and perhaps a new name. As a second, unrelated proposal, would you object to a section near the top of the page listing just the most recent bannings (in addition to, not instead of, their position in the main list below)? --Corveroth (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just like that page A LOT as is. It's a historical trip. People can find the latest B&R by going at the end of the timeline, or they can go somewhere else for that kind of info, which is what they probably do already I'm not sure there's much more to improve except of course correcting mistakes/filling holes like using the old D'Angelo rulings for guidance as you talked about above. I'm not a conservative person, far from it. I just find this page great.--Eluency (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anything to the contrary. I've dropped the original proposal to reverse the ordering. At this point, my interest is that there is little else to be said about the ban list, and this article is already the de facto article for such, and I'd like to add some content at the top and rename the page to account for that fact. --Corveroth (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. We could do a merger with the other articles and rename this article to "Bans and Restirctions". That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. - Yandere Sliver
- You can make it sortable, with the current order as default --Hunter (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The idea had occurred to me, but no. That would entail transforming the list into a table, and I don't think this article would look good in table format. Again, reversing the list isn't really under consideration any longer. --Corveroth (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Look, you say the page is great, I say the page is great. Can adding sort-of-useful tangentially related stuff improve it ? Adding "pluses" to something great doesn't mean you'll make it greater, chances are it'll do the opposite. There's an elegance to the page. It's relatively sober. People can go all the way down to find the latest (though we're regularly a bit late on those). And if they want the B&R list for a format they can click on that format, and those (at least the sanctioned ones) appear not too far down. I don't know what are those links you talk about that link to this page, but if they intend to link to the current list for a specific format, they should link to that format's page, that's where you get it on this wiki, if they allude to a historical b&r, that's the right place, nicely organized. I think you'll can be proud to contribute to such a cool page, but there can be such a thing as being too generous. Please let it go, can we have some peace on that ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluency (talk • contribs).
- Yes, I agree. We could do a merger with the other articles and rename this article to "Bans and Restirctions". That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. - Yandere Sliver
- I'm not saying anything to the contrary. I've dropped the original proposal to reverse the ordering. At this point, my interest is that there is little else to be said about the ban list, and this article is already the de facto article for such, and I'd like to add some content at the top and rename the page to account for that fact. --Corveroth (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just like that page A LOT as is. It's a historical trip. People can find the latest B&R by going at the end of the timeline, or they can go somewhere else for that kind of info, which is what they probably do already I'm not sure there's much more to improve except of course correcting mistakes/filling holes like using the old D'Angelo rulings for guidance as you talked about above. I'm not a conservative person, far from it. I just find this page great.--Eluency (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(resetting indent) My goal is to make a generic "banned/restricted list" article. That article will have a paragraph or two giving an overview of the history of the lists, discuss how they interact with draft, discuss how Commander's list is managed by the non-WotC EDH crew, list the most recent bannings, and give the date of the next announcement. Since this timeline is the closest existing article, I wanted to measure the willingness of the editors with a stake in this article to expand it to cover those points. Since that proposal has not been well received, I'm content to write the article described above from scratch. It will probably link here under the heading that lists the most recent announcement. --Corveroth (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you![]
I love this page so much, and am grateful to everyone who put their time into curating it! Thank you so much! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.121.230 (talk • contribs).
Historic Suspensions?[]
Should historic suspensions and bans be added to this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.52.201.210 (talk • contribs).
- They are already listed on the Historic (format) page; maybe just a reference to that page? --Hunter (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Broken links[]
A lot of the time it's fun to try to read their justifications for the bans but the reference links are broken and go to 404s. I try to fix 'em as I see 'em but why does it keep happening?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snth (talk • contribs).
- Because, unfortunately, Wizards of the Coast revamped their website. Lots of links have changed, and lots have disappeared altogether. --Hunterofsalvation (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)