Talk: Star Wars Customizable Card Game/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Star Wars Customizable Card Game

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Expansions

I am completely unfamiliar with the SW CCG, but a list of the expansions could be nice. --SparqMan 02:32, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I added in a list. Formatting on those links will almost certainly need to be changed. For a while now I've been considering adding a bunch of info on SWCCG, but I wasn't sure if I should. It raises a lot of questions. Do we create a page for every card? Or do we put every card on the page for its expasion? Or do we even bother listing every card? Will this create too many niche pages? What sort of naming conventions should we use? – Aidje talk 06:32, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • The expansion pages need to be renamed anyway. What format shall we go with? I think Star Wars: The Customizable Card Game: (expansion name) is correct, but is that too long? How about CCG: (expansion name) - Kwenn 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Anymore come of the expansion name-change? CBenoit 16:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I changed a few articles, though no one actually replied, so I don't know if anyone else agrees with it - Kwenn 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY WAS THE PLAYERS COMMITTEE PAGE DELETED

  • !!!! CBenoit 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages that need to be reverted

The following SW:CCG related pages need to be reverted: —Unsigned comment by CBenoit (talk • contribs)

  • Players Committee
  • Mike Carr
  • DeckTech.net
  • Virtual Cards

You may want to ask SparqMan to restore them, as the deletion log says he's the one who deleted them. On the other hand, it seems to be the consensus of most users that we only need one article on Player's Committee/Virtual Cards/etc. Are any of those pages left? You may just want to merge the information into the remaining articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • All of those pages have been deleted. Which makes no sense, since we had voted on them prior and they were elected to be allowed to stay. There was important information for players on the Players Committee (PC) page. CBenoit 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No more word on this?! CBenoit 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, SparqMan says if the users interested can create a concise, informative page that summarizes the entire efforts to sustain the Decipher CCG, let's see where it goes. We do not need endless staff lists and other minutae. It appears that there's not much support for individual pages on every Players Committee member, set of Virtual Cards, etc., etc. Would you like to try writing a new version, or do you want to ask SparqMan to undelete Players Committee so it can be edited to remove links to pages which we don't really need? —Silly Dan (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Players Committee

  • If I were to create a new page for the Players Committee, would it be deleted like the previous one? CBenoit 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I would revert much of what Palpatine just changed to the previous version (like the area where Decipher lost the license) due to extreme lack of neutrality.

If I knew how to revert things, I'd do it myself. CBenoit 18:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I play and collect cards of this game and I know all the history, the part of the article I have edited, for example adding that the cards include Shadows of the Empire. I was traslating the article to Spanish and I realize that it mentioned some things two times, repeating it, and I only tried to summarizing the article.
Perhaps u think I am not neutral because I wrote the aproximate amount that the manager of Decipher said he offered to Lucasfilm (a curious fact important to be known). Lucasfilm have never contradicted that (so it's true), but they gave the explanation that already is on the article, that it was better only a company have all the licenses. I think giving the explanations of the two parts is neutral, permitting that the readers decide theirself. I haven´t wrote that George Lucas own Hasbro and WOTC neither that the other cards game was worse and it broke because nobody buyed it, so it would be better Decipher have go on producing it.
I am not against Lucasfilm (God bless Lucasfilm for all the merchandising). I am not agains Decipher (I believe in their tag line: Art of great games). I think even it's better the game stop growing, letting me to get all the cards (so if I were not neutral I would be supporter of Lucasfilm).
I have just edited the page and, instead of mentioning two times WOTC (that wasn´t my fault), now it only appears one time. Do you think now it´s neutral enought? If no tell exactly what sentences do u think that aren´t neutral. If you disagree with telling the amount offered I think it's important to say it, but if it´s another thing just comment it. --Palpatine81 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert Darth Culator's Deletions

I would like to have a revert of Darth Culator's deletions. He has deleted nearly entirely everything of the article, without stating reason, citing why, or giving any sort of reason, need, or cause for all of the massive deletion. He has since 1)threatened death to anyone who would change it as well as 2)locked the page to prevent and undoing of his deletions.

I state, as well as many others that I have talked to, that which was deleted was actually needed, worthy, knowledge and information pertaining to SW:CCG in general that was needed for the article. That which was deleted was relevant, noteworthy, and should not have been deleted.

CBenoit 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the deletions

Many of you seem to wondering why all the content was deleted, particularly the bits pertaining the players committee. It's because the same was done to the IDC references on the Star Wars Trading Card Game page, which is the same as your Players Committee. I'm trying to get it fixed, but you guys need to help to get this all fixed. it's considered fanon i think is why it was deleted. However, fanon is allowed if important to the community. I am arguing that it is important to the CCG community to have those references, and the same with the IDC.

1)Sign your comment.
2)Its not fannon. It was created and endorsed by Decipher. We've been over this ad nauseum.
3)It is not fanon since it has a specific impact upon the player community and the legitimacy of SW:CCG today.
4)You have deleted much more than just the PC stuff (ie. world champions, numerous Decipher-created functions/activities/tournament information).
5)Your deletes were unsourced, unnoted, and just random. Further you locked it when you should not have.

It was very inappropriate. 72.70.187.119 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Explain how any of it was relevant to CANON when you have no license from Lucasfilm. Be aware, however, that any answer you give will likely make you look like a complete idiot. Star Wars canon has nothing to do with game tournaments. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not rude of an answer or anything. 72.70.187.119 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
But in actuallity, LucasFilms know of the cards created by the PC and while not forcibly endorsing it, does allow it. Unlike the IDC's who work completley illegal. Do your research first instead of reverting to insults. 72.70.187.119 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that the PC doesn't have an official license from Lucasfilm, then? So why the hell should we give a damn about them? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, let's see, they have an official agreement with LFL, Decipher, and other such subsidiaries and companies (Hasbro), unlike the IDC.
Likewise, I see you didn't comment on your non-PC but SW:CCG/Decipher related information you deleted.
I also see you are reverting to insulting, avoidance, and cursing to try and get your way. I have noted that you are quite the bully on here, and it will/should not be stood up for.

72.70.187.119 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You're not answering the key question. DO YOU HAVE A LICENSE FROM LUCASFILM TO PRODUCE STAR WARS MERCHANDISE? If you cannot provide any proof that you do, then you can fuck off. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to but in, but uh... Culator, I don't think cursing the n00b out will help. Also, you are doing a great bit of avoidance on the subject of non-PC of which you've deleted. CBenoit 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • To put it simply--in terms even CCG players can understand--the only thing that needs to be on Wookieepedia about the CCG is that the "lore" on officially licensed CCG cards is canon and nothing produced after Decipher lost the license is canon. Tournaments have nothing to do with canon, player groups have nothing to do with canon, and gameplay mechanics have nothing to do with canon. Anything other than what we have up now (and some of what is left) is utterly useless and borderline spam. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, further insulting. Seriously, Culator, we understand your thoughts. Many of which are arguable and debatable. By your standards, the Decipher and WotC pages, and the SWTCG pages should all but be deleted, since I believe that the SWTCG doesn't even include lore.
We get it, you don't like card players, and you view them as lower than your own life form. That does not mean what they post/edit is worthless. This should be a debate - it is a wiki (wookiepedia) thus it is debatable.
Thus, you cannot just delete it, then protect the page and not allow those people to delete/edit/change back, what you did.
Furthermore, it is a problem that your bullying and insulting and cursing is causing. I think a report should be filed against you, for nothing more than those three things. CBenoit 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
---* I also note that your user-page includes a user-box as a fan of SW:TCG... that would have no relevance on this at all right? CBenoit 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
---**Also, what of your user-box, "hyperinclunionist" ... is that why you are also a hyper-deletess of things like this, which are beneficial knowledge albeit for a "dead game"? CBenoit 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "[T]he Decipher and WotC pages, and the SWTCG pages should all but be deleted" - FINALLY! Someone GETS IT! -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That statement sounds like it goes greatly against your 'hyperinclunionist' userbox. CBenoit 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Wookieepedia's mandate includes real-life Star Wars-related activities, of which the actual playing of the CCG certainly qualifies. While the information on the Players' Committee is debatable (I don't know how well it would stack up against Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects, but I suspect it would pass muster), information on the game while it was still supported by Decipher is clearly notable and should be kept. And all of these insults to people who think otherwise are quite unnecessary. jSarek 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at Culator's page, I see he's an administrator. Not to insult, but you have got to be kidding me, that an administrator here can go around telling people to "F*** off". CBenoit 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I Propose a Revert

I propose a revert to Darth Culator's massive deletion. We can then work on the article from there, and decide what is worth keeping and what is not worth keeping through a useful debate and concensus, rather than one dictatorial approach. CBenoit 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That's exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. When an article about a card game is longer than the article about TheForce.Net or StarWars.com, we have a problem. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and the problem is that those articles need to be longer, not that this one needs to be shorter. (Not that there's any inherent reason an article on TFN - which is strictly a fansite - SHOULD be longer than that for an officially licensed game). jSarek 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Why the "f***" (to use your language) is that a problem? !72.70.187.119 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this article is fine as it is — but that's because I think a single, concise article on the Player's Committee would be worth having. I don't think the extensive details on a fan project (even if it is a notable one which has received official recognition from Decipher if not Lucasfilm) need to be in this article. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Dan. BUT, I think the article should be reverted, to see what non-Players Committee pertinent information was deleted, and then, create the Players Committee article out of the SW:CCG article that pertains to the PC, and then delete what was moved to the PC's article. CBenoit 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me, from reading what was deleted, that the issue should have nothing to do with length or whether we discuss fan activities (we do), but rather that a fan-made group has no place in an article on an officially licensed organization. Especially the PC expansions, which would be complete fan fiction. Furthermore, most of it reads like an ad for the PC rather than an encyclopedia article. - Lord Hydronium 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And if you have one-sixteenth of a clue about how wikis work, you can get the info without having to revert anything. This article is fine as it is. Actually, it's bloated as it is, but at least it's free of spam. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • So how can an administrator act so rudely? CBenoit 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Lots and lots of practice. jSarek 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Or maybe it comes naturally? It does seem to be strange that an admin can behave Arrogant and rude like this. Manoof 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything to come of the possible revert? CBenoit 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I propose a Revert

  • I am again proposing a revert. CBenoit 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't revert the article. If you want to see what used to be in it, click on the article's "history" tab, and follow the linked dates to see the old versions of the article. Then, I would support making a single article titled "Player's Committee". —Silly Dan (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Can we have this page unblocked so it may be able to be edited to remove outdated information and to add new information? Thank you. CBenoit 03:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)