Talk:The Lord of the Rings Trading Card Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] "Prolific Players"

I've removed the Prolific Players section as I felt it was irrelevant and did not conform to a neutral point of view. Plus it was far too easy to argue over every name on the list, regardless of how good certain people might think they are. If you want to put it back, please discuss it on this page first. Thanks. --Stenun 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, it wasn't really my point of view persay, basically I took 9 of the 10 players that top the lifetime premiere points list (which is a very accurate judge of a players tournament abilities, located on DGMA.com), and also added the player who is further down on this list (in the 30's or something) but included them because they are currently ranked number one (Michael Perucca). To me this is fairly neutral. If you want to leave it off, I have no problem with that.

I would also like to mention I have interest in expanding this page. I'd just like to create some more depth and detail, create some new headings, etc. Perhaps I should run them by you first? LMK if this is ok, it would be a work in progress for me. My days of playing Lotr competitively are over but I still have interest in it and it is something I am VERY knowledgeable about.

---

Now there is a different list, WTF. Brad Eire? Dan Clarke? Tubman? Other clowns I have not even heard of? Common, these are not the former top players of the game, at one point when the game was still new they may have held the top spot but that is circumstance (and gained by playing in crappy little local tournaments). Lifetime premiere series points is the only measuring stick that can be applied here.Jonobgood 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment, with the list of World Champions and runners-up, that's fine. The problem, I feel, comes in if you start including a list of "other good players". Particularly if no indication is given on the page as to how this list is composed. If you absolutely definitely feel that more players should be listed then we should work on coming up with a fair criteria for that list before it is applied to the article. For example, a list of the top 5 ranked players in the world as of the 1st January 2006 would work, with updates every year. Or if you feel so inclined, updates more often. But just a list of random names that the contributor feels qualifies as an "other top player" is meaningless and it violates the NPOV. On a more general note, you don't need run your ideas for an article past anyone if you feel they are good, just implement them. If, however, someone feels differently they will edit it back again. If they don't say anything on the talk page about it, then you should do so yourself and hopefully you can discuss your ideas with others. Entering a revert war solves nothing. Until any further list of players is agreed upon on this talk page, I will delete any further list that appears in the article and I would ask that you do the same. --Stenun 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)