Forum:TCG Character Pages

Continued from User Talk:Gourra

How are TCG characters a lore source and/or why would they be canon? -- 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, all warcraft media were canon until declared otherwise (and really, the TCG has no reason to be non-canon. All it does is add some characters, some very minor bits of lore, such as The Assassin's Creed, and the timewalkers). More specifically, concepts from the trading card game (well, really just the timewalkers) have actually been referenced by developers.--Ijffdrie (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The TCG is not listed in the Source category, so it doesn't fall within "All official sources of lore are considered valid" of the lore policy. -- 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's circular logic. The reason it isn't listed in the sources is because we haven't added it to the list of sources because the TCG sections of our wiki are hilariously underdeveloped. There's only two people who worked on them, and at least one of those (a.k.a. me) didn't even know that category existed. What you're saying is that we can't consider it a source, because we're currently not having it listed. For the record, the TCG is approved by CDev, who do actually edit the cards and occasionally request stuff (like the aforementioned timewalkers).--Ijffdrie (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Since no one is commenting here, I'll try to clarify a bit. We're discussing here between two viewpoints:
 * 1) I say that there is no official statement regarding the canonity of the trading card game, but all cards go through CDev, and we're generally working with a 'every released product is canon unless specifically stated otherwise' policy. As such, characters and spells introduced in the trading card game are considered canon and should get their own, however minimal (and usually just redirects to the card page), pages, so we can add them to the categories.
 * 2) Gourra's position, if I understand correctly, is that there is no official statement regarding the canonity of the trading card game, but there are enough reasons to forego our normal stance and consider it non-canon until specifically stated otherwise by blizzard. Keeping trading card game pages is a fun addition, but things introduced in them shouldn't get pages of their own, and they shouldn't be put in categories with other things.
 * 3) Aside from our two viewpoints, there's also two other obvious possibilities that bear mentioning. Number three is for people that agree with Gourra, but want the rule also applied to things introduced in the non-canon RPG.
 * 4) And there's the counterpoint to number 3: agreeing that the Trading Card Game is non-canon, but wanting it treated the same as the RPG currently is. Stuff introduced in the trading card can go on other pages and pages of its own, but needs to be isolated with a clear tag to show its dubious canonicity.

So, any arguments for or against any of these four stances? --Ijffdrie (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right about my viewpoint, and I agree with 4), but only as long as it's connected to other non-TCG sources - one example would be Timewalkers, which has almost all information from the TCG, but has been mentioned in an official interview. -- 23:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, does no one else have anything to add to the discussion? It's kind of stuck with just the two of us -_- --Ijffdrie (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason that I see for the characters not to be canon.-- 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with redirects, it's not likely that the majority of names used in the TCG will end up being added into WoW anyway. 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any case of TCG lore contradicting the "other" lore?--LemonBaby (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I've seen.--Ijffdrie (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Velen's and Lor'themar's classes were shaman and paladin.-- 03:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Later cards fixed that though, switching them to priest and hunter respectively.--Ijffdrie (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As Ijffdrie said, all the Cards are checked by CDev (as Mike Sacco revealed in SoL). As they are lore-checked, they can be lore-sources (even when that means they can be deemed non-canon at any moment). And about the "shaman and paladin" stuff, that's game mechanic thing of the TCG.--Cemotucu (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just finished with the march of the legion cards. People here seem to be mostly in favor of the canonicity (or at least redirect route), so I'm soon going to be adding those unless there's a last good argument why I shouldn't. --Ijffdrie (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with redirecting card titles to card pages (when not in conflict with other articles); but I'm not sure whether creating separate articles like Urrth is worthwhile: the entire page is basically a "this name was mentioned somewhere!" note, and that isn't particularly interesting (to me). — foxlit (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)