Finally, it is not important that Magic be the first. People want to know that kind of thing for research. Secondly, I think having the first card game mentioned is perfect information for a lead. I could care less which game is first, but the sources have to be in place. It used to be one, now it's up to three that states Magic as the first. Finally, why is it important that Magic be the first? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I think you need to reevaluate your interpretation of my edits. All the sources that are reliable (not made by the publisher of Magic) have qualifiers, i.e. Why is "Magic" the first actual collectable card game? What does actual mean in this context? Because you say so? I don't think the lead (or article in general) should mention the "first". Leitmotiv ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC) This is the problems I have with your history of insisting "Magic" is the first colelctable card game. I will change the article to reflect this information. At best it is a prototype and can be noted as such, but the first actual collectible card game would be Magic given the sources available on this article.
No one had a chance to collect it and it was never even released to the public.
If you couple that with the STRICT definition of "collectible," then there is nothing about the game that matches the definition. First, it was never published and was only in prototype form. Some recent edits suggest the Base Ball Card Game as the first collectible card game. 15 Should we have a category for out of print CCGs?.
0 kommentar(er)
