Talk:Universes Beyond: Doctor Who

Color
Sorry, how do we know the color of the cards where we just have the illustrations? I'm not getting that one. Najawin ☎  20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The colours were identified in Gavin Verhey's reveal video so you need to listen to that section to get the colours.


 * This is strictly not true about 13, Yaz, and Davros. (I think you're making two assumptions concerning 13 and Davros here. But we don't do that on this wiki.) It's also non trivially true about any of them that we've not seen if only for the reason that color ID != color. Najawin ☎  14:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Gavin Verhey confirmed this at time stamp 15:50 (for 13 and Yaz) of the [https://youtu.be/Vbu8f6Mb9Jg?t=950 The BIG Doctor Who Commander Reveal! New Cards, Art, Deck Themes, & More! | Magic: the Gathering MTG] and time stamp 19:00 for Davros. Fear not. I will not update any info that has not been stated as fact and will specifically not mention anything that is not yet revealed. Either way, the big reveal just occurred in Barcelona today and has just confirmed the above and a lot more cards that I will be adding.Nadimo ☎  21:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-leaked info
Hey, weird nuance here. The official Doctor Who twitter account shared some cards a bit too early and has since deleted the tweet. They've been stored elsewhere, so we know what they are, and can source them, and they'll be up officially soon enough. But I guess it's technically leaked from an official source until then? Should we just add them anyhow? Or hold off until the official release of info? Nuance due to our new spoiler rules and leaks, I guess. Najawin ☎  21:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The cards that you're talking about are already on Scryfall and similar sites as official images. Not potato quality leaks, so I shall be adding their info. If it was a "photo", I would state that these were unconfirmed. As it stands, I believe that we're all good. Nadimo ☎  04:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, quality is good. That's not what I'm worried about. It's our policies. Najawin ☎  05:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on the policies, I've placed the information with a Rumours section with an explanation as to the source and validity. Would humbly appreciate your input if this isn't the ideal way to tackle this. Nadimo ☎  06:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably good? The issue here is that Forum:Temporary forums/Changing the Spoiler Policy is a little vague on how to deal with leaks.
 * As pointed out by User:NateBumber, as per T:RUMOUR do actually seem to allow some unofficial spoilers on specific sections of series pages, with rigorous sourcing. This seems to have worked well so far, but should not be extended to the new types of spoiler pages except for the ones about individual upcoming works
 * The issue here is whether the sourcing can be rigorous. Since the tweet was deleted. We now have unofficial / semiprofessional references to this event at best. So it depends on if we consider, like, Scryfall and mtgrocks to be rigorous sourcing. (I'd really like a third party comment here. Personally, I'd lean towards saying that Scryfall is probably sufficient, but that reddit, twitter, and mtgrocks are not. If Scryfall is convinced, we should take that seriously, imo. But it's not super clear how we should apply this standard in this particular case, since it's coverage from sites that specialize in an IP that isn't ours, so we don't have clear standards on how traditionally reliable the wiki has held certain sources to be. Knowing what I know about MtG, being a filthy occasional cedh player, Scryfall is fairly professional. But it's the policy angle I'm worried about.) Najawin ☎  07:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)