Talk:Banned and restricted cards/Timeline

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)