Talk:Ravnica (plane)

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Magic: The GatheringWikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringTemplate:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringMagic: The Gathering
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Note that although the full title of the set is Ravnica: City of Guilds, the title of the article is simply Ravnica. This is in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which favor common usage when determining how to title an article, and writing out the full name in the article's body (see Frankenstein or Moll Flanders for an example). Note that in his article introducing the official Ravnica previews, the set's own lead designer, Mark Rosewater, does not once use the "City of Guilds" portion of the title and simply calls it "Ravnica" throughout, even though the article is essentially official Wizards of the Coast promotion for the set. Please respect the Wikipedia convention. Andrew Levine 00:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Do we have the right to use the official desriptions of the guilds? The current test is copied from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/guildpact/gruul and similar pages. --Apoc2400 08:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Tikitikirevenge 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Is it really necessary to have a "WARNING, STORYLINE SPOILERS" note before every plot spoiler if there's one at the top already?

Recentish latge additions.

Unless references are provided for them I'll have no choice but to remove them. I've no objection to them, but verification is a must. Jefffire 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]