Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Star Wars PocketModel TCG
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —MJ— Training Room 23:54, November 19, 2012 (UTC)
Should this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_PocketModel_TCG be moved to the merchandise wiki since the cards only contain game mechanics? From what I can see no actual new (if any) expanded universe information appears in this media unlike the Decipher and Wizards CCG that had a wealth of previously unknown characters and expanded universe tid-bits printed on the cards. Jartka'irn (talk) 01:01, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- The unit names alone are unique new canon information introduced by the game. Random example: L-2832. On a smaller scale, they've done for TCW what Decipher did for the pre-Prequel universe. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:16, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- "From what I can see no actual new (if any) expanded universe information appears in this media." Then you haven't looked. Game mechanics are limited to the icons and base plates of the miniatures. Unit types/classes/callsigns provided for the miniatures are all canon and approved by LFL. However, the cards in the game contain more info including quotes and narrative. It looks as if you are specifically targeting something that I am affiliated with right after I tagged several pages that you created and/or edited because of notability issues and original research. Before you start throwing around templates to remove material, please research the material or at least have enough evidence to support its removal. —GethralkinHyperwave 04:11, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Back atcha. Jartka'irn (talk) 11:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I never support removal of material that have sufficient evidence of attribution. —GethralkinHyperwave 06:54, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Despite the PA intent that this issue was raised with, the answer has been sufficiently provided. Can we please close this discussion, then? —GethralkinHyperwave 01:08, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I never support removal of material that have sufficient evidence of attribution. —GethralkinHyperwave 06:54, September 13, 2012 (UTC)