Talk:A Game of Thrones collectible card game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please stop accusing this Wiki of Copyright violations. There are NO copyright violations on this page. All of the material on this wiki is readily available on FFG's website and is intended for promotional use. This site has been viewed and evaluated by FFG as containing appropriate factual content. The link to the wiki is a "sticky" thread on the official AGoT forums on FFG's website. I have personaly spoken with the developer of the game and he is in complete agreement that the material on the wiki is being used appropriately.
EthR
- I am sorry, but this is a copyright problem. It is not sufficient for Wikipedia to have permission to use this, it must be released under the GFDL and in any case there is no way we can verify that the developer, who may not even have the authority to permit the use, has endorsed it. We would need an email from someone @agameofthrones.com to permissions at wikimedia .org confirming that the text is released under the GFDL. Do NOT re-add the text unless and until this has been verified. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have relayed this request to FFG/AGoT. I am confident they will release these types of materials for publication on the wiki.EthR 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wikify?
How about some examples of what is wrong with the formating? Just saying to someone "fix it" is useless, downright rude actually, without telling the person what is wrong with it.EthR 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well of course I clicked the links and got the giant documents of suggestions. I'm not really prepared to spend the time to cross-reference my document with the style guide. Give me an example. As far as I can tell I have followed the wiki format well.EthR 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move to “A Game of Thrones collectible card game”
As far as I understand, the title of this game is A Game of Thrones”. Right? In that case, and given that I understand WP's naming conventions, the proper title for this article is A Game of Thrones collectible card game, to which I will move it unless there are objections. Arbor 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The game title fully has the Collectible Card Game (with capitals), so shouldn't be moved. Coldwind 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, no. The game title is A Game of Thrones. Right? The spelling of the term “Collectible card game” (not part of the title, as far as I can tell) on the box art wisely follows FFG editorial policy, but has no bearing on what we should do here.Arbor 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... you appear to be correct. Serves me right for going by the logo. Everywhere I can find on the FFG page has it solely listed as A Game of Thrones. Thus, I support a move lower casing it (or... to be consistent with the board game, moving it to A Game of Thrones (collectible card game) Coldwind 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, no. The game title is A Game of Thrones. Right? The spelling of the term “Collectible card game” (not part of the title, as far as I can tell) on the box art wisely follows FFG editorial policy, but has no bearing on what we should do here.Arbor 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean-up of lists
Do we really need a list of all possible traits in the game? It'll be an ever expanding list (several new ones are created each set), and since they have no game mechanics themselves, is this not basically a list for a list's sake? Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a sentence/section that describes what a trait is?
Similarly, the informal deck types? Why have these listed... particular if there's no explanation as to the theory behind them?
And again with the Agendas - saying what an agenda as a card type is, but there's no need to list all of the currently usable agendas.
Also, since Iron Throne Edition was just released, someone with access to the rules (not yet online) should do up a section explaining the new Multi-player Title cards.
And maybe a section on the new card templates (assuming there are any images available that we can use.Coldwind 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm going to be bold and maybe try cleaning up some of this stuff myself. Coldwind 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
EthR 14:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The reason for informal deck types is that there is no list else where. Yes it would be more relavent to have explainations of the theory. Why not add that instead of getting rid of the information? The purpose of this page is to provide MORE information not less to get people interested in the game. Also this is a fact based entry and many of the facts you have deleted. Honestly I do not agree with you deleting it. The point is to give a non-player a feel for the flavor of the game and how nedly it really is. My frame of reference is to not repeat information availible else where. I think I stuck to that goal well.
- No list elsewhere? That depends on your point of view - certainly deck building sites would have several variations on that idea, and we do link to a prominent one in the external links area.
- Now, I admit, I was bold with my deletions, and if concensus is to restore them, then I'm not going to be an unreasonable hold out. But remember that the point of Wikipedia is not to be a how-to guide, nor a rules document. As much as I'm a fan of the game, the goal of this article should be to answer "What is this game about?" I don't know about you, but whenever I've explained the game to people, I've never been asked questions about deck types. How to win? Yes. What books is it based on? Yup. Does it feel like the books? Certainly. What kind of cards involved? Sure. But never what kind of decks can a player make. Your experience may be (and likely is) different.
- Honestly, I'm not even sure if we need the full descriptions of the card types that I left there (still more rulesy to me than encyclopedic), but I'm not _that_ bold.
- And yes, Wikipedia is fact based, but that is qualified by it not being an indiscriminate collection of facts. Do you really need every possible trait listed to give someone a feel for traits? Instead of listing House Tyrell, House Marbrand, House Umber, House Dayne, House Frey, etc... why can't we say "some traits represent the various great houses of Westeros". Same feel, fewer words. Taken further, "some traits represent groupings of characters in the world of Westeros", now we've pretty much included every other character trait. A couple of examples were thrown out (honestly, mostly just to give something to wikilink) to give a grounding, but we certainly don't need to list every one.
- Honestly, consider the Magic: the Gathering article - almost no rules are discussed there at all. It has qualified as a Good article, and almost made Featured article.
- Still, yay, discussion! Coldwind 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overhaulin' done?
Rutting time out... that edit by 142.176.0.18 was me. I coulda sworn I logged in...
Anyways, I finished the clean-ups for the remaining card types, as well as the game play section. I removed the informal deck types, as I could see no value in listing those, similar removal with the keywords, but I did add a common game terms and rules section. Could more go in there? Maybe we could add Immunity and Cannot Be..., but I kind of think those might complicate things for a casual reader right out of the gate.
I cut out the champions except for the World Champions. I don't mean to imply the other guys aren't deserving, but we can't list every tournament here, so I think a nice arbitrary line at the World Championship will suffice.
I made a few other minor tweaks, like the intro paragraphs to give a better idea of the nature/goal of the game, and removed some superfluous images.
Stuff that (I know) is left:
- New additions from Iron Throne edition - new card templates, new Multiplayer Titles, and possibly a multiplayer tournament format if released.
- Citations/references for the World Championships, and maybe the Awards.
- Moving the article as per Arbor above.
Coldwind 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
