Talk:Gameplay of Hearthstone

Notability
What sources are we using to claim that the game's gameplay is independently notable from the game? Is the gameplay itself the subject of multiple in-depth sources? Much of this split content needs to be pared anyway if it cannot be sourced to a reliable, secondary source czar  11:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was determined at the Hearthstone page that a split was needed and the best line would be along the gameplay rather than development, so this is consider in that style (and most "Developmnet of X" articles aren't similarly notable but they are reasonable). I know there's a few swaths that need sourcing to third-parties but that's easily found from the reviews of Hearthstone back in 2014, and of course there's continued articles on strategy and the like as well. --M ASEM  (t) 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I share the same concern, with respect to WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even if this content can be sourced it doesn't seem like encyclopedic information. The basic summary of gameplay in the main article seems sufficient, and this is well into game-manual territory. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As late as I am to this discussion, I'd like to agree. The solution to this information being redundant on the main article should've been to remove it, not dump it on a new article. BlueBanana (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Galakrond's Awakening
This adventure includes 35 cards. Even though it was released in 2020, it seems like it is part of year of the dragon https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23227142/. Should it have a separate entry under Descent of Dragons? --Frmorrison (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)