Talk:Expandable card game

Not much on this

@BOZ, @Guinness323, @Leitmotiv, @Mindmatrix, @Masem: Here is the article I promised to write a while back about what I think we probably should call expandable card games (LCGs are perhaps more common but technically limited to FFGs games only, and the term customizable card games is often used a synonym to collectible card games). Anyway, I have exhausted reliable sources I could find. Feel free to expand - otherwise I'll publish this in a little while in the current format. Side note: we should create Category:Expandable card games...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Things that would be good to find sources for

Here are things I tried and failed at finding sources for:

• Miller's claim that LCGs have less metagame than CCGs is likely dated, as he wrote it before the advent of the FFGs era LCGs. I could not find any RS discussing LCGs metagame, however.
• Travis made a fair point that LCGs feature more coop mechanic than CCGs, on average, at least. I wanted to add that they are also more likely to be multiplayer games, but I could not find any RS for that, again.
• I removed from our CCG article OR claiming that LCGs that stated that in LCGs "players select a pre-made deck that comes with the game or through expansions but will start the game using only a subset of these cards. As the game proceeds, the player will add, remove, and swap cards with those from the selected deck not in play, commonly representing character growth, equipment gains, or other "permanent" changes, hence the "living" factor in these games." I could not find any RS for this, and anyway, Android: Netrunner was an LCG and obviously it had no such feature. Now, I know other games do have it, but I am not aware they are known under any specific name (arguably, they should be). On the final note here, such a definition of course encompasses a bunch of modern board games, including Pathfinder Adventure Card Game ([1]), which are a hybrid deckbuilder. More on relationship between LCGs and deckbuilders would be good to write, again, if RS can be found...

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that compared to collectible card games, expandable card games focus more on storytelling and cooperation? Source: https://www.playthepast.org/?p=6913 and its subsequent parts linked in the article as refs
  • ALT1: ... that expandable card games are sometimes known as "living card games", but the latter term, while popular, is trademarked by a single company, preventing its use by competitors? Source: http://www.pairofdiceparadise.com/expandable-card-games-ecg-trademarks-patents-3-of-3-a167.php
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 519 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

• I think there is an issue with the article, which is that going by the most of the sources in the article and the hook source, the WP:COMMONTERM appears to be "living card game", and therefore that should be the title of the article and the boldlink. For related reasons I think ALT1 is actually the more interesting hook, though it would benefit from rephrasing to make it punchier. I'm keen to hear other opinions. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Cloventt and Z1720: This has been discussed a bit by card game editors, I also pinged them at Talk:Expandable_card_game#Not_much_on_this. It is not clear what is common term, and while LCG is a common term, as explained in the article, it is trademarked by one company, and could be considered not neutral - prioritizing that one company over others. I'd be happy to see this discussed on talk, but nobody seems to care, and I don't feel like deciding by myself to use a term specific to one company over what appears to be a perfectly fine and more neutral (not trademarked) term. As for the "punchier" wording, feel free to suggest an ALT1a and I can "adopt" it if it seems ok to me, so you could accept it... otherwise I am sorry, I don't know what your idea of "punchier" is. PS. Please WP:ECHO me when replying, if my response is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Cloventt: What else needs to be done here?--Launchballer 14:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I already replied extensively, with a ping. Maybe a new reviewer is needed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to fix this because as I said initially I think it is something of a fundamental issue with the article. Happy for another reviewer to weigh in on it. In terms of a punchier hook, something like "... that 'expandable card games' is a generic alternative for the trademarked term 'living card games'?"David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cloventt: I'd be fine with that hook. Would you be ok with the article getting featured using it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I’d rather leave it to another reviewer to decide. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Doing....Two preliminary comments, though:

1. I'm fine with "Expandable card game" as the article title.
   • The WP:COMMONTERM is debatable, and since "Living card game" is a copyrighted term, we should not underestimate our influence as most cited reference work on the planet. I'm quite sure Wikipedia has more readers than Fantasy Flight Games has players, and if we title our article that way, we will be putting our thumb on the scales in making it a generic trademark in a big way, which will be doing nontrivial and active harm to them. As long as it is debatable, we should not do that.
   • Also, "Expandable" is simply more descriptive. "Living" could mean any number of things (I've heard Legacy games described as "living"), "expandable" is much more clear.
2. However, I am troubled by the first line of the article, and its definition/scope. "card games where each player has their own deck of cards." How does that not apply to any number of games that don't use a shared deck, for example Dominion (card game)? That has expansion sets too. How about changing "has" to "owns"? Maybe "brings"? Something to indicate that the deck is prebuilt, not built during the game like Dominion. And merge in the "expandable" part into the definition sentence, that is, after all, the important part here.

Full review to come. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - No, sorry. I marked one quote failed verification. The line about "but the term "Non-Collectible Collectible Card Game" would not be practical." is not marked as a quote, but does not seem to be in that source either. Important bits of the article are sourced to Chaz Marler who seems to be the sole writer and publisher for Pair of Dice Paradise (well, with his very, very young daughter), which means it's a self-published source, so you need to show he is an acknowledged expert in the field in some way. We don't have an article about him, and he's not used as a source in any other Wikipedia articles - can you show he's an acknowledged expert, and not just a guy with a blog? I guess I'll grudgingly accept Roger Travis/Play the Past, since it boasts a large stable of people with PhDs ... but honestly, those PhDs are in various liberal arts fields, which are not quite in games, so even that one is marginal. In any case I recommend writing something like "games historian Roger Travis" at first use to at least explain something about why he is to be considered a reliable source.
• Neutral: - Not really. You mention Fantasy Flight Games as the sole publisher, and while I'm sure they're important, leaving out all the others is not neutral, even if they are by far the most important. That's sort of like writing about electric cars and only naming Tesla, or writing about search engines and only naming Google.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - no, again. ALT1 is cited, but only to Marler. The original hook is backed by Play the Past, which I grudgingly accept as above, but that article doesn't say that about all or most ECGs in general, just about two or three of them specifically.
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: As above, "ECGs are card games where each player has their own deck of cards.", which I see both in the lede and in Characteristics, is not really an accurate definition, because it leaves out the "expandable" part. (Jerry Seinfeld had a line about that. ) All this is hopefully fixable. Good luck! GRuban (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Just noting that this is two months old so technically qualifies for WP:DYKTIMEOUT; it doesn't feel fair to do that given that this has only just gotten a full review, but this should be dealt with urgently.--Launchballer 18:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban and GRuban: I've corrected the 'failed verification' quote - the source says "a game that breaks away", I shortened it to "breaking away" but sure, we can use the original wording. For showing that Chez Marler is more than just a guy who runs some random blog, see [2] - he is a professional in the field, involved with the leading website BoardGameGeek. He was also involved with another major media in the field, The Dice Tower [3], and Watch it Played (covered for several paragaphs by SaltWire Network [4]). So I think he passes as an expert in the field (non-academic but professional and respected by his peers). I've also added the word 'customizable' to the lead (as to not repeat 'expandable'). I hope this addresses your concerns I'd also like to note that the level of concerns raised above, while appreciated, seems to be more at the WP:GAR level than what I'd expect from a WP:DYK. PS. I've also added a ref mentioned of another company and a non-FFG game. Note this article is not intended to be comprehensive, since this is not a GA/FA level writeup. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hah! (Or, I should say, thank you, thank you, since I was addressed twice.) If you think those nitpicks are GA/FA level, I want you to be my GA reviewer! If I were looking for Wikipedia:Good article criteria such as Well Written, I would point out that

• the quote you corrected, a "a game that breaks away out of CCGs has two leading "a" articles and no closing quotation mark. I corrected that one for you.
• "Some of games occasionally classified as ECGs" was, instead, missing an article. (Law of conservation of articles?) Also corrected.
• that you still didn't give the reader any explanation why Roger Travis's opinion matters, despite my suggestion. Also corrected. I'll similarly write a few qualifying words introducing John Jackson Miller though those are less necessary as he has a linked article.
• That your quote but the term "Non-Collectible Collectible Card Game" would not be practical also does not seem to appear in the source, as I mentioned. Removed.
• That the sentence "The genre has been popularized by the American game company Final Fantasy Games" in the last section was simply wrong, there is no such company. I'm correcting it to Fantasy Flight Games, as all the other mentions (but see the next point!).
• That the article is repetitive and/or redundant in places, such as:
  • that it mentions Final Fantasy Games in three places besides the lede: (Expandable Card Games vs Collectible Card Games, History, and Notes) leaving the reader to read all three of them together to infer that FFG is the main ECG company. (And still not to be sure whether it originated the genre, or merely formalized the genre, or merely became the main company in the genre after it was originated or formalized...? Consider that another suggestion to fulfill or ignore as you see fit.)
  • "these games are very similar to CCGs and can be seen as their subset" seems redundant with "the genre has been inspired by CCGs"
  • linked/redlinked names of games are dropped seemingly at random rather than in any organized way, for example
  • " One of FFGs most popular titles was Android: Netrunner, which debuted in 2012; since 2019 it has been published by Null Signal Games and rebranded as an expandable card game." seems like it should live in the paragraph about "Some of the games occasionally classified as ECGs were meant to be traditional CCGs ... Some games have been converted into ECGs/LCGs from CCGs;" rather than History. If the intent was that Netrunner was a major point in ECG history, saying as much would be nice, otherwise it merely says it was a major point for FFG.

And of course it's not Comprehensive. But, yes, after explanations and tweaks this article does meet DYK. And it was fun to read. I did not know about ECGs before I read it, though have been playing Magic, and Dominion, and the board game version of Arkham Horror for years, and having been aware of Yugioh and Pokemon. Thank you for writing it, it is a worthwhile contribution to the Wikipedia.

Approving ALT2, as suggested by User:Cloventt and accepted by nominator, "... that expandable card games is a generic alternative for the trademarked term 'living card games'?". Honestly, I'd recommend something between that and the already similar ALT1 by the nominator, say ALT3 "... that expandable card game is a generic alternative for the trademarked more popular term 'living card game'?" but I'd imagine I'm not supposed to both make up my own hook and approve it, and User:Launchballer is very clear that we do not have time to look for yet another reviewer! --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus, GRuban, and Launchballer: something about ALT2 seems ungrammatical, I think it's the "expendable card games is" bit. How should this be fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd depluralise 'games'.--Launchballer 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't even know if it's interesting in the first place. "Did you know that this term is used because it isn't trademarked?" No, but I can't imagine anyone much cares. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I added "more popular" in my suggestion. But in the end, there are people who like games, and there are people who don't. For me, and, I suspect, many of us, it would be very hard to get an article about games on the front page that I wouldn't read. However, it is similarly hard to imagine a link about a football player that I would care about. I could read "...that Joe Bloggs, half-quarter-centerback for the Walla Walla Warmongers has been universally agreed to be the second coming of the messiah?" and say "meh". --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The current lead entry in DYK is "... that heavy-metal guitarist Kiki Wong (pictured) played drums for Taylor Swift before joining the Smashing Pumpkins?", which seems very boring to me. That a musician played for a band? Really? Shocking. And yet thousands of people interested in music are clicking on it right now. Now if you want to read a DYK nomination with an truly interesting hook, may I disingenuously suggest... --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have accepted that Kiki Wong hook myself (although so far it's the fourth most viewed hook of the month?!?), and other stuff exists.--Launchballer 00:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. This is not that. This is a Did you know hook, the point of which is to draw attention to the article, and you have just proven that on an inherently interesting subject, a mediocre hook will do fine. That said, if you have a better idea please do suggest it! --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I find plenty of hooks boring, including many passed by you - not because it is your fault, but because I find their subject matter uninteresting. For example, I care little about sports or music, unlike most folks. But I find gaming and legal issues interesting, and for me, the proposed hook is very interesting. And there are others, like GRuban. So please, less subjectivity. No hook will appeal to all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, with the existing impasse and how over a week has passed since this was supposed to time out, it appears that the time has come to close the nomination. I'm sorry it has come to this but sometimes articles are not good fits for DYK. This was supposed to close over a week ago but given the circumstances a week extension seemed fair: that extension has now passed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to the mini-GA review

@GRuban I'll respond here to your extensive "beyond DYK" review/comments (which, like all your fixes and comments, is very appreciated). First, I'll say that this is a topic where very few sources exist, and while it is notable, it is one of those cases where I personally struggle because as someone reasonably familiar with the genre, I "know" stuff (or think I know it) that I believe should be here, but I cannot say it b/c it would be ORish (and I cannot find RS for it). Which is why yes, this is hardly comprehensive - because sources, I fear, do not exist to make it so.

The claim that "the term "Non-Collectible Collectible Card Game" would not be practical" could indeed be called my OR, but I thought it is common sensical enough to be fine (per WP:SKYISBLUE).

Regarding the impression that "FFG is the main ECG company", I think it is correct, as that company has published likely the most ECG titles, some of the most popular ECG titles (or perhaps most of those - could do OR analysis by looking at the ranking of all ECGs at BGG I guess, but that's OR that we couldn't really use anyway...), and it could likely be credited with popularizing the genre, up to and including its trademarked name for it. The only thing FFG cannot claim is to have originated the genre, as the oldest ECG titles predate their involvement with it - but those first ECGs were not very popular; the genre really became popular with Android: Netrunner, until then it was very niche. The problem is of course proving this with sources, which as I said are few and generally are not about ECGs as genre (we have enough for SIGCOV, but barely).

""these games are very similar to CCGs and can be seen as their subset" seems redundant with "the genre has been inspired by CCGs" - depends on the context, some stuff can be inspired by things which are hardly similar. Not the case here, but it is good to say both, IMHO.

"Netrunner was a major point in ECG history" - that is true (IMHO it is the game that made this genre not niche; this game was like MtG for CCGs) and would be good to say it clearly, but sources, sources... It is arguably the most important ECG game in existence, although perhaps some would disagree (would need to check BGG rankings again). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)