Talk:Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering)

Untitled

Note that there is currently a slight issue with Gatherer: it omits all of the Circles of Protection from Alpha, instead of correctly omitting CoP: Black but leaving the other four in. This is why the link in the infobox (correctly) says 290 cards, but if you follow the link, you'll find that Gatherer only finds 286. I've reported this to the Gatherer devteam, and hopefully it will be fixed in the near future.

Also, please be aware the Crystalkeep data claiming 295 cards for Alpha isn't really ideal, because it counts alternate art as separate cards, which is of possible interest to collectors, but is misleading for everyone else. I'll be going through the sets and changing this to Gatherer stats instead. --Ashenai

Notable cards

Since I believe that the "Notable Cards" of a set is a highly contentious issue, I'm going to explain exactly why I included the cards I did, and post proof of their notability here. If you decide to add to, remove from, or change the list of Notable Cards, please do the same, so we can have at least a minimal amount of objectivity. Thank you!

The Power Nine is notable because: They have all proven to be game-bendingly powerful, and are all restricted in tournament play. They are the most sought-after and expensive Magic cards in existence, all commanding enormous prices on the secondary market; $200-$2000 is typical for a single Power Nine card.

I'll remove the 'honorable mention' of Library of Alexandria. Multiple reasons. First of all, this is highly outdated. For at least five years now, it hasn't been anywhere near the most powerful land. Currently most players in the know would list at least Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Strip Mine and Tolarian Academy above it. Secondly, it is not in the Limited printing at all! The definition of Power Nine has become universally accepted, but this 'honorable mention' of Library definitely hasn't. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Boons are notable because: They were the first and best-known cycle. With the exception of Dark Ritual, they define the single most characteristic ability of each color to this day.

The Dual Lands are notable because: They are the best two-color lands to this day, and are included in every multicolor deck in which they are legal, with no exceptions (to the best of my knowledge). Along with the Power Nine, this makes them the only "auto-include" cards in all decks of the appropriate colors that I know of. (Well, Lightning Bolt and Dark Ritual may also fit the bill). They are also surprisingly expensive on the secondary market.

I consider the following cards Runners-up: Birds of Paradise, Channel, Counterspell, Disenchant, Fireball, Grizzly Bears, Serra Angel, Shivan Dragon, Stone Rain, and Swords to Plowshares. These cards would likely all be notable if they had been introduced in a later set, but the blinding fame of the current Alpha notable cards simply overshadows them, IMO. --Ashenai 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the dual lands; notable Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited cards should probably be cards that were only in Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited.

I added Chaos Orb, which is notable because: It was the first manual dexterity card, and there was only one other, ever, except for "Un" sets. It was also quite widely used while it was legal. --Ashenai 01:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's okay to add Birds of Paradise to the notable cards list. I think either Birds or Wrath of God holds the distinction of being printed in the most sets (at least for rares). Birds is one of the archetypal cards in green and it's notable if only because it is one of the cards that has helped define the color over the years (except for the flying bit).

Also, I think Swords to Plowshares is notable as an Alpha card, since it wasn't reprinted after about 1996 (Ice Age), and it is widely viewed as the best white removal card. It also defined what white "spot" creature removal would stand for: a universal (destroy creature instead of "destroy nonblack" etc.) removal spell that usually had the effect of enabling the creature's controller to benefit in some way (Afterlife, Reciprocate). Davemcarlson 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dropped Mechanics

• If I remember correctly, Mark Rosewater once said that all of Garfield's original keyword abilities (Trample, Flying, Protection -- I can't think of others) were still in the game. In this article it mentions that banding was dropped from the game, but I'm not 100% sure if banding was in alpha. What do you guys know about this? Davemcarlson 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• There were three creatures with banding: Benalish Hero, Mesa Pegasus, and Timber Wolves Darkelfpoet 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Differences in alpha borders

Can anyone find/make a picture that shows the differences between the corners of an alpha card and a non-alpha card? Setitup (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Alpha / Beta / Unlimited

Consider this a formal merge proposal if anyone is watching. All 3 are just printings of the same set, there's no reason they can't all be covered in one article. The name should ideally be "Limited Edition" except that would surely be confusing due to one of the printings being, uh, "Unlimited." So as a fallback, I think "Alpha / Beta / Unlimited" would be a decent title for the merged piece.

Any objections? Title thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge No objections here. But I would recommend a good name. Your suggestion is better than "Limited." Leitmotiv (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge pbp 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge Magic Core Sets into only 3-5 articles?

Many of the Magic: The Gathering Core Sets are short articles; most Core Sets consist of only reprinted cards. I suggest merging the core sets into between 3-5 articles

• Magic Core Sets (1993) (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited; three print runs of the same card set)
• Magic Core Sets (1994-2007) (Revised and 4th-10th Editions)
  • Could be split at 6th Edition (massive rules change), 8th Edition (modern card debuts), or both. If split at 6th, it'd be 1994-97 and 1999-2007. If split at 8th, it'd be 1994-2001 and 2003-present. If split at both, it'd be 1994-97, 1999-2001 and 2003-2007
• Magic Core Sets (2009-present) (M10, 11, 12, 13, 14; the five core sets that have featured new cards pbp 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• • My leaning is toward a split at 8th edition to reflect the Modern format that is commonly used at tournaments. This would streamline the articles and make navigating easier I would assume. Those interested in legacy formats wouldn't have to click on the Modern core sets to get those remaining 6th and 7th core sets info. Otherwise, it looks good along those lines. Addition: I say three articles (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited), (Revised to 7th edition), (8th edition to M14). If you really wanted to take chances, you could try Alpha to Revised on one article, 4th Edition to 10th, and M10 to current on the last. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer the M10 splitting point myself- yes, 8th edition is a runner-up, but at the time, it was only notable for the change in card frames. M10 forward are quite dramatically different than 10th edition and before - they're smaller, release more often, stay in Standard less, have new cards, new mechanics, etc.

• Looks like someone forgot to sign their comment. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think "Magic Core Sets" is the right term for the A/B/U article, though. "Core Set" only came around as a term in 8th edition, IIRC, it was "base set" before that, and I don't think A/B/U really qualify as base sets either. I think just "Alpha / Beta / Unlimited" is still probably the best title, awkward as it is. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• You just may be recalling incorrectly. I recommend calling them core sets. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Or Mark Rosewater could be wrong! Or he means that they were called "Core Sets" internally. I'm sure they were called that casually by some, but I'm pretty sure that "core set" became the official title only with 8th - checking the 8th webpage... http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/productarticle.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/eighth/productinfo . It sure makes it sound like "Core Set" is the new hotness. Checking the other official webpages... 4th & 5th edition use "basic set." 6th edition just calls itself "Classic". 7th edition uses "base set" but only once, and mostly calls itself 7th edition. 8th onward use Core. So... it's a mess. I can see the argument for retroactiveness for Revised-10th because 8th-10th are the most recent, but ABU, not really. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think we are delving into semantics as well as sources that can be cited to show it can go both ways. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I think the latest and most used term should be applied here (Core). We can certainly note in the earlier sets where they may have been referred to as "basic" or "classic." But I don't think we gain much by splitting up articles on the basis of name alone. See new response below. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Merging A/B/U seems good at first glance, but I am not really sure if it is correct. Alpha and Beta are just different print runs the same set, and I have wondered a couple of times if they shouldn't go into one article; even way before the recent merger craziness. If only Alpha and Beta were combined, the correct name of the article would be Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering). Unlimited, however, is in a few ways more akin to the later Core Sets. The main points here being, that it is white-bordered, and doesn't introduce new cards. Also the counting of M:TG Core Sets starts at a joint one for Alpha and Beta, and Unlimited is two. Having an article for the first set alone seems justifiable.

Regardless of the decision on that part, Core Sets 2 or 3 to 10 should go into one article. They changed a couple of things all the time: Have cards not only from Alpha (Revised), have entirely new artworks (5th), new rules (Revised, 5th, 6th), Core Set with its entirely own art style (7th), new frame (8th), black border (10th). The design philosophy of Core Sets did change just very gradually between 3rd and 10th Edition, so there is really not that much reason to split. When combining 2nd to 10th Edition in one article the only awkward thing would be, that 10th Edition was black-bordered. This can't be helped, though. OdinFK (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• All this talk makes me think that perhaps the best solution at this time is one article that notes all the core set iterations. They can be split at a later time if the article gets too unwieldy. If a split must occur now, I recommend two articles: Alpha to 7th (Legacy) and 8th to M14 (Modern). Leitmotiv (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose OdinFK's solution works. It's so weird since "2nd Edition" / Unlimited is exactly the same as Limited Edition, so there isn't much to say about it outside of Alpha/Beta, but if it makes the titling saner... I imagine the "Unlimited" section of the Core Sets article would just have a main: Limited Edition and say "yeah, see there for details on the set, it's the same except now there's a white border."
• I'm also with Odin that M2010 is the better splitting point. 8th is relevant for tournament play, but from a business / out-of-game perspective, M2010's changes were huge, while 8th edition was Just Another Core Set at the time.
• I'm going to look into starting the merge shortly, unless there's any complaints... a little weird to do it while the AFD is in progress, but the odds of it closing as delete seem remote at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• A quick merge of Alpha/Beta/Unlimited is fine (reworking can be done later if need be). White border/black border differences seem trivial to me. But tournament worthiness seems applicable to real world situations and worthy of wiki research, as well as stuff like M10 being revamped from 10th and the direction of cores sets shifting at that juncture. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion

A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406063112/http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/limited.php to http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/limited.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken Links

Many of the links are currently broken, notably all the Alpha Oops article links and the /dev/Joe error list. There are probably more that I didn't check. Archive.org seems to have them all saved so it should just need updating with those links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruler501 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Spacing

Hello Leitmotiv,

There is explicitly no guidance in the Manual of Style for spacing style, precisely because it does not matter. See MOS:DOUBLE SPACE. It is up to the "local" editors on each article. Because it does not matter to readers, it is strictly a matter of editor preference of those who are working on the article and seeing the raw wikitext; it is not something that is to be "fixed" as the only change. If it was, then Wikipedia would have standardized on one style or the other, with the other being in error. "If it's so ignorable why don't you ignore it" - because your edit is the one that only changes spacing style and nothing else. That kind of edit goes against the keep-the-peace standard; should I run around adding double spaces to every article that is currently only single-spaced, even if I only rarely touch them? (Mindmatrix removed some double spaces too, but as part of an edit that was also making some other tweaks, so whatever.) SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: You do realize you're making a mountain out of a mole hill? Double spacing is a relic from typewriters. There is nothing in the MOS of style that says it is permitted, except that it will be rendered to one space anyway - that's the de facto MOS via formatting. That's shorthand for the code desires one space, not two. Now the other thing you are glossing over is that the article should have consistency. Having double spaces in a few places does nothing (it's superfluous), and so the entire article should be consistent. The reason why you don't add double spaces everywhere, is because it's a waste of time, just like your reversion of my simple edits, that yes, you could ignore, but instead choose to die on this absurd hill. My edits are productive in keeping the article: consistent, less ascii characters, less annoying white space, and to stop the pervasive relic of double spacing from the typewriter era from spreading on Wikipedia. Your edits, by comparison, do not appear to be productive. They gain nothing, except to be contrarian via edit warring. Get with the 21st century, my dude. Also, you went down extreme hyperbole lane with your comment suggesting that my deletions of blank space is essentially disturbing the peace, or in your words: "goes against the keep-the-peace standard". I'm sorry, is there a large brigade of Double-Spacers that will lose their mind over my edits? My hunch is no, and your comment was pure cockamamie. It would appear that you are the only one upset about a few double space deletions - and why? I have no clue. But hey, you know, keep up the good fight SnowFire! Those single space ne'er-do-wells, they're out there lurking in the shadows! Anyways, I will be reverting. If you have a problem with my edits, please, by all means take it to arbitration. And we'll argue this ridiculousness there and waste everyone's time. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Your personal userspace suggests: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." My recommendation is to follow your own userspace advice. Stop adding unnecessary white space. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You are the one that is making the mountain of the molehill. You realize you "started" this? If you agree it doesn't matter, then lay off. I am not making up the Wikipedia conduct standard I described above; this was hashed out a decade ago in debates far larger than either of us. A semi-recent discussion on this matter is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_183#Double_spaces_after_period? . Please read it. If you truly feel this issue is important, you can head over to the Manual of Style talk page and ask for a single-space requirement to be imposed, but I don't think you'll find much support.

As for the Saint-Exupery quote, that quote is talking about well-meaning editors who add content that is superfluous, not about preferring the absolute shortest grammar/style. I use double spaces, I respect others who use single spaces, I merely ask for the same respect in return. You realize how ridiculous it would sound to tell an editor who uses British English that the extra "u"s are superfluous in glamour/behaviour/etc., so why not change over to American spelling, right? You can remove the British styling and it's still readable? It's the same thing here. It's an utterly harmless style choice. SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: This is ridiculous. You live in a weird upside down world. You are going out of your way to add in a few double spaces via edit warring, and suggesting I started this. You edit war and suggest I'm disturbing the peace in an edit you acknowledge as no big deal. You say that this isn't an important issue as you compulsively combat it. I'll take this to arbitration to waste our time I suppose. And maybe I'll learn that for some unreasonable reason I shouldn't delete unnecessary white space, but I can't wait to be surprised. White space is waste. There is no movement to add double spaces to articles because it's useless, and the formatting strips it out anyway. And here you are arguing for its existence, evidenced by your reverts. And you're British analog was neither here nor there, nice try though (one is arguing about actual letters, the other the absence of). Leitmotiv (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional thought. It would seem prudent to point out that if deleting double space was a waste of time, by me taking it to arbitration, it would seem even more of a waste of time for you to have gotten involved the way you did. The easiest solution it would appear, Snowfire, is to have not made a mountain out of a mole-hill and realized that reverting is equally, if not more-so, as bad as deleting white space. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It is pretty harmless alright. Nevertheless I wonder why people insist on using it? It disturbs the reading flow of everybody (including non-native English speakers) except for a minority of Americans and even in the US it is not used by publishers anymore. Apparently it is even considered pretty much unequivocally wrong today: Sentence_spacing#Typography... OdinFK (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well OdinFK, if you realize it is useless, we can always reach a consensus here to override Snowfire's knee-jerk reverts. It would appear Snowfire is displaying a bit of article ownership mentality. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What possible argument is there for keeping the double spaces given that they don't even show up in the article? — Czello 18:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. This has nothing to do with this article in particular. It has to do with whitespace-only edits. Like I said, if you want to propose a revision to the Manual of Style that imposes single-spacing, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Speaking strictly factually here about Wikipedia policy - which is what I was communicating above - there is no such requirement to have single spaces, and editors are already discouraged from pointless, do-nothing, invisible-to-readers whitespace edits. That is what I reverted. Nothing to do with this particular article at all. Maybe some more attention to content would be more useful?

Finally, Leitmotiv, if you can cool the temperature slightly? You wouldn't insult people who write using different spellings than you're used to, correct? Then please accept that some people have different spacing styles as well. It's not "incorrect." It's just different. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing in the MOS that green lights double spacing. In fact it says it is rendered out during formatting. That isn't confirmation that you just add double spacing willy nilly, or randomly revert edits that reinsert them into articles. If you can tell me a valid reason why you should reinsert them, I'm all ears. But so far you haven't provided a productive and valid reason to randomly reinsert the double spacing, such as through your reverts. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that there's no requirement for single-spacing, but why edit war to keep the double-spacing? It's such a non-issue that doesn't require preserving. — Czello 22:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Leitmotiv: I didn't add the double-spacing willy-nilly. I added it as part of rewriting the content, years ago, because that's how I write. If you had rewritten the content, then I wouldn't have complained about you using your own spacing policy, of course, and there'd have been no problem whatsoever. Also, please read the various other times this issue has come up on the Manual of Style talk page. The way that the guideline has been interpreted is that both styles of sentence spacing are allowed, and that edits solely changing from one style to another for no reason are not encouraged. Again, this is not my preference, this is just the current status of that guideline.

Czello: I entirely agree, but that argument cuts the other way, however. If it's a non-issue, then just let the status-quo lie. Just leave things be as stable. Leitmotiv is the one making the change here. SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I edit wikipedia the way it is displayed and rendered via HTML. You, however, edit the way it is not. You edit to your personal preference which is neither here nor there. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A way forward

I suppose I should offer a compromise here. Leitmotiv asked for "a valid reason why you should reinsert them". Just to be 100% clear, this is not the place to relitigate single vs. double spaces stylistically about which one is better. I'm not here as some double space evangelist to convince you that double spaces are better, and all of the above arguments about how single spaces are really better are similarly irrelevant to me. So let me explain why this Wikipedia policy is in place, although I think I kinda already did above: it's very similar to WP:RETAIN, the guideline for different national varieties of English. Suppose there are two productive, good faith editors. One writes the Apple article with single spaces (or European-style dates, or something else irrelevant) and does a good job. The other writes the Orange article with double spaces (or American-style dates, etc.) and does a good job. Furthermore, both of these editors maintain these articles over time, continuing to update them in the writing idiom they are comfortable in. Now suppose some drive-by editor comes in and disrupts them: they change Apple to double spaces, while a second drive-by editor of the reverse bent changes Orange to single spaces. This editor is attempting to "standardize" Wikipedia ono their preferred spacing scheme which they believe is superior to the other. What does this achieve? No matter which side you support, hopefully you can agree that these drive-by editors are not helping. At the absolute worst case, they are annoying or even driving away helpful, productive editors who wrote the content in one style. It's bad because it doesn't help readers, but it does hurt an editor, at least one of whom you agree with in this hypothetical example. Now, if these new editors were actually revising content? That's a different story. But if it's just a drive-by edit? That's not helpful. It's actually harmful to Wikipedia, because it makes editors stressed and wastes time in disputes like these. Both of these hypothetical drive-by editors should be reverted, including the one who is using "your" style! And indeed, if someone had come in and put double spaces on a single spaced article with no other changes, I'd have reverted them too. Despite preferring double spaces myself.

This is the entire point of the style guideline, essentially: to avoid pointless, time-wasting disputes that distract from real content work. For some matters of style, this is resolved with a rule: do it this way. For others, it is resolved by no rule: we don't care, and you shouldn't either. Do whatever you like if you are writing new content, but also don't go on a crusade against old content that doesn't fit your preference. If you do, you are wasting time, and should be reverted.

So that being said, I'm perfectly happy to concede on this particular article if there's a real desire for consistency in this article for some reason. Whatever. What I don't want is this taken as a license to run around removing double spaces everywhere on all articles because it's "better". There is no such policy. If I were to edit some section of another article we both follow using double spaces, then don't just follow it up with an edit saying "fixed your error" removing them or the like, because it doesn't matter and you shouldn't care, in the same way I wouldn't run around changing your articles to use double spaces with no further change. And yes, it sounds crazy, but people really have been banned for this kind of thing - editors who ran around making pointless whitespace only edits that gummed up watchlists for no apparent reason. ( Special:Contributions/Brogo13 for one recent-ish example.) SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

To quote SnowFire: "I'm not here as some double space evangelist to convince you that double spaces are better", but "what I don't want is this taken as a license to run around removing double spaces everywhere on all articles." Are you sure about those words? They appear to be at odds with each other. It would appear to me that you have some ulterior motive that may align with some form of outdated evangelism, to quote you. You still haven't demonstrated how reverting my edits is productive to the article, since your edits are rendered obsolete anyways. Too much hyperbole. Where is all this "stress" coming from? Double-spacing that noone sees? Your edits were non-productive and were the fruit of the most time-wasted. I'm still trying to figure out why adding double spaces is productive and what it contributes to the article at large. The most you have been able to demonstrate is that you prefer to write that way, all the while ignoring and simultaneously acknowledging that's not how Wikpedia renders your edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Leitmotiv, I don't expect you to agree with me or with every Wikipedia policy (I can certainly think of Wikipedia policies I disagree with), but I expect you to take the effort to understand my position. That is the least you can do. Please read what I wrote again; I tried to be extra-detailed.

I'll make this even more basic and abstract. Suppose there's some issue that doesn't matter to readers. Could be anything. Then don't mess with it, and really don't mess with it if it's contested, and defer to whoever wrote the content. Does that make sense? Do you see the point of my comments about keeping harmony among different, productive Wikipedia editors with harmlessly different styles? SnowFire (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

SnowFire, I think the point of contention at this moment in time, is that I entirely disagree that my edit was controversial enough to be a matter of contention. You are literally the only person that has decided to revert these edits I've done from time to time, and you've figuratively flipped the table over it. And it confounds me, because you 1. Acknowledge that double spaces aren't rendered (so why restore them?) 2. And you also know nothing is gained by reinserting them. Because of that, your reverts are highly unproductive to the goals of Wikipedia (to speak nothing of your userspace page quote), and does not promote fellowship between editors of Wikipedia. For all intents and purposes, your edits gain nothing, so they appear to be combative - and that's exactly what you got. I'm not sure what else you expected to gain from adding white space through a revert. At the end of the day, your edits are a net loss in multiple ways, yet you insist. One thing I think you and I can agree on, is that there should be a MOS ruling on this at Wikipedia. It would end future discussions like this when it arises again, and it shouldn't be ambiguous as it currently is. I would enjoy having you involved at a discussion at the MOS talk page regarding double space, and your view point would be welcomed. Perhaps if there was a stance on it, it would amount to more than the potentially saved ascii characters in future conversations about it, thereby saving us some storage space eventually. I mean it is presumed the internet will go on for at least another 100 years, if not more, yes? That's not an insignificant number. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Leitmotiv, you keep repeating the same things. I'm not sure how to proceed aside from repeat the same things I already wrote. You either don't understand my position, or are choosing to misrepresent my position for whatever reason; please again read my statement at the start of this section, on the value of letting Wikipedia editors edit with their own typographical style. Why do you think I reverted your edit? I again proffer that you are the one being combative here. As I said at the Edit Warring noticeboard, it is an indisputable fact that you started this first edit. It is also not controversial that your edit "doesn't matter" to readers. Ergo, in my book, you are the one being combative here. Let me ask you this one question very directly: suppose I went to an article you edited and made an edit that solely added double spaces. Suppose you reverted me. Suppose I kept insisting on the change, reverting your reverts constantly. Who started that hypothetical edit war? Me, or you? Please answer.

And no, I don't agree with sticking a single MOS standard on this, actually (aside from perhaps explicit confirmation that whitespace-only edits are not encouraged, and if reverted, should not be contested with further edit warring by the initiator). I already said that I don't care if you (or anyone else) write with single spaces. I'm happy to let others edit in their styles. Why can't you be content to let me edit in my style, as the MOS permits? SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Still wondering who the edit warrior is in my hypothetical scenario above, where I go around adding double spaces to all of the articles you've edited. SnowFire (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion of how to walk forward. Both of you realize you are arguing over nothing and move on and try to actually improve wikipedia and not worry about whether someone is using double space OR deleting extra spaces. Just worry about your own edits and stop wasting space with this ridiculous debate that has nothing to do with MTG and is cluttering up the talk space of an article for no reason. Just walk away and be like Elsa and Let it Go! You're both so concerned about having the last word.... does it matter? Really? Does it hurt either of you to just walk away? For Pete's sake ya'll. This is silly. You're both good editors..... go be good editors and stop wasting your energy on this!! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle: Unfortunately it does matter. Not single spaces vs. double spaces, but rather the general principle of WP:RETAIN. Imagine if some editor went around changing every British English article to American English, and conducting arguments about how American English was superior on every talk page. (Please note that I've never once talked about why double spaces are better above, yet Leitmotiv has wasted quite a bit of effort in praising single spaces as somehow superior.) The change doesn't matter, yes, but that's still disruptive, and good editors DID waste their time on such nonsense until the RETAIN policy was firmed up. I'm not asking for a lot here. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you, that both of your edits are disturbing the peace as you call it? And that's also why you cannot agree on who is the culprit here? Removing double white space (although correct from a modern type-setting standpoint) achieves nothing really. So the original edit was pointless had shouldn't have done. Reverting it is equally pointless however and might start an editing war, thus it shouldn't have been done either. I imagine the better way to go about this would have been for SnowFire to leave a message on Leitmotiv's talk page and inform them, that these kinds of edits are not recommended for certain reasons. Not sure if that's the way to do it, but it seems like the outcome might have been less disruptive... OdinFK (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@OdinFK: I agree. But I was not aware of the finer points of double spacing up to this point, so my edits were innocent, if not productive. Contentious, as in "disturbing the peace", is however extreme hyperbole. How can an argument about something that we all admit is insubstantial, be disturbing the peace and be contentious? Spoiler: it's not, as admin's have pointed out to us, which is why they feel we are wasting their time, and rightly so. I have already suggested to SnowFire that he should have done exactly what you suggested and he would have gotten a better reception from me. And I also agree with you about SnowFire, his edits gained nothing and were combative since they added nothing to the article and were merely trying to prove a point - which is what he could have done without a revert by just talking to me personally on my talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I left a fairly detailed edit summary message in my revert of Leitmotiv's bold edit. I also went to the talk page before Leitmotiv did and left a detailed explanation, per the Discuss/D in WP:BRD. If the issue was "proper manners", I've never made unexplained, edit warry moves. However, I also feel that said edit should be reverted eventually. Even if I had started with your talk page or this talk page, then this kind of style edit should still be reverted if the original editor disagrees with it. Which would put the ball back in Leitmotiv's court - would you still want to revert my revert?

Maybe I wasn't blunt enough before, but I again ask: can you re-read what I wrote? Maybe let me put it to you this way: I was admitting defeat, I was giving up, but, conditional on you merely acknowledging my concerns, and recognizing that I was not some double space evangelist lunatic. I believe very deeply in the matter of editor style choice, believe it or not. You can think I'm silly, but that's me. And the triviality of the matter is precisely why I reverted - if you're saying that the issue doesn't matter, then surely you won't mind if your initiating edit is reverted, correct? Yet clearly you DID continue to edit war to push this, so I guess it was important to you. All I ask is that you acknowledge that double spacing is not inherently harmful and that you're not going to run around doing such edits in articles. And I'll be happy to leave this page as is with a consensus to use single spacing here. If you can't do that, though, then this debate is just a prelude to having this debate on every single article we both edit, so we need to escalate it now. SnowFire (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Idk... you're giving mixed signals, so it's really hard to say which way you're leaning. You're not a double space evangelist, and you're admitting defeat, yet you think at some point reinserting the double spaces should be done. Color me confused. I disagree that they should be reinserted, especially if you aren't editing those sections specifically. That would appear to fall in the line of edit warring again. If your editing style is double space, then edit the double spaces in on the sections you are specifically working on. But remember, they don't add anything to the article. If your thumb enjoys the double space method, fine - but I would presume that is for large chunks of prose while writing; not randomly inserting double spaces where it looks visually appealing to you specifically. But going way out of your way to insert them in other sections would appear to be displaying ownership of the article for your editing style, as well as the other factors discussed ad nauseum (double spaces don't do a darn thing to the article at large).

Anyway, I don't know if you saw before. But I mentioned that we should bring this up in the talk page of the MOS. I think your opinion on the matter is worthwhile, just as I believe mine is. The MOS should not have some ambiguity regarding this subject matter. It de facto shows a MOS without double spacing after rendering (that is literally the style it is displayed in), but those two things should be reconciled: MOS versus how it's rendered. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the only decent compromise is to remove every space from the article. Literally all of them. — Czello 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)