Talk:List of card-collecting video games

Sortable table
Instead an alphabetical and per-year doubled list, this needs to be a sortable table with name, developper, date of first release, platform (and probably "franchise" to sort by groupsort by original physical game or as standalone.) I have some experience (I did List of Mario video games years ago) so I might be able to help in the future. Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  03:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a possibility, but it may be overkill too. I don't know how to do it. I was just realizing that having to duplicate lists sorted differently is twice the work, and was going to delete the second list but making sure the years were listed in the alphabetical sorting. If you can devise a table that will sort by columns that would be great, and it should be applied to the CCG list too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs)
 * The Mario one took me almost a whole weekend (it was technically a merge of three lists, the per year, per genre and per platform ones); this one shouldn't take as long but still a significant undertaking I don't see myself doing in the next few days. :p
 * Lemme give it some thought and in a few days I might throw you basic framework in a sandbox which you can start filling out with games maybe. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which Mario one? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * .... The one I just talked about creating a few lines up. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  07:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I read, in some form or another. Sorry, I was operating on lack of sleep and am sick with sore throat. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I took your table and copied its use for the List of collectible card games. Not perfect, but it is great to see the two lists combined now and sortable which I really like. Thinking about adding another column for, but for what escapes me at the moment! Leitmotiv (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

, Do you have any examples of sortable tables that also have images in them? Leitmotiv (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, because they shouldn't. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of digital collectible card games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metaversemessenger.com/PDF/MM-2006-01-31.pdf
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20071213022448/http://www.eyeofjudgment.com/ with http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20080225093451/http://www.eyeofjudgment.com/ on http://www.eyeofjudgment.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524223452/http://www.keepersofgrimoire.com/ to http://www.keepersofgrimoire.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924022520/http://www.moonga.com/index_en.php to http://www.moonga.com/index_en.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314185418/http://www.soulcard.co.kr/ to http://www.soulcard.co.kr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134504/http://www.mobicle.co.kr/ to http://www.mobicle.co.kr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116110119/http://www.comicimages.com/stargate/index.html to http://www.comicimages.com/stargate/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921001800/http://mytcg.net/topcar/ to http://www.mytcg.net/topcar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621154714/http://product.gree.net/us/en/apps/37162/ to http://product.gree.net/us/en/apps/37162/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924022520/http://www.moonga.com/index_en.php to http://www.moonga.com/index_en.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708004210/http://battlemonsters.wikispaces.com/ to http://battlemonsters.wikispaces.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112013036/http://www.gameshydra.com/ to http://www.gameshydra.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808023301/http://www.konami.jp/th/suiko/ to http://www.konami.jp/th/suiko/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect to/replace with List of card game-based video games
Recently, I spent some time at List of card game-based video games making it a fully sortable, cited list which includes all bluelinked entries from both that list's previous version and this list, and which is now free of spam. Based on the state of this list I assumed it was abandoned and acted boldly, redirecting this article to that since my changes rendered this list a duplicate of that more complete list. I was reverted by who suggested a discussion first. Totally fair, so here's my rationale:


 * 1) This list has already effectively been merged to the larger list List of card game-based video games, which contains every notable example listed on this article.
 * 2) This list is clearly not being stewarded in any way, because it is full of spam links to the official sites of non-notable games.
 * 3) The other list is fully referenced with appropriate secondary sources.
 * 4) The other list is fully sortable by year of release, game title, developer, series, and platform. This is an improvement that has been discussed for this list but was apparently never completed. As a result, this list includes two redundant versions (by name and by year), which unnecessarily doubles the maintenance work needed to add/remove new entries and denies flexibility to the reader, but still provides less information.

Overall I think there's a reasonable case to make that this article is redundant to the other one and should be redirected. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Abandoned doesn't really exist on Wikipedia. They're just temporarily not worked on. If an article is more or less complete and grade A+, is that abandoned? It's really neither here nor there.


 * As for the quality of this article, that's pretty much irrelevant to your reason for a merge. All articles have a state of quality, but that doesn't mean they need to be merged just because they lack a certain quality.


 * But to your point. I can see that these games should be added to that other list. However, the major distinction here is that these are digital CCGs, and the others on your proposed list-merge may or may not be. Not all card games are DCCGs and DCCGs are essentially a subgenre of card games. It's why a list of card games should never be merged with a list of collectible card games. While both are card games, one is a specific style of card game that involves collecting the cards and/or trading them (among other things). Another way of understanding this is through this analogy: while a square is always rectangle, a rectangle is not always a square.


 * Essentially, this article should be discussed from this reasoning: Why should a DCCG list article be separate from a list of video game card games? And that is simple. Not all video game card games are digital collectible card games. Solitaire and all the classics easily come to mind, but obviously there are modern deck-building games as well. This article is preoccupied with that distinction, and if you merge it, that focus is lost.


 * A little bit of history. This article was split from the List of collectible card games, which is distinct from other traditional card games. It was split because it was reasoned that a digital collectible card game is an oxymoron. No physical cards are actually used in a DCCG, only facsimiles of them. And many have foregone the facsimiles and are now represented by other shapes that bear no resemblance to actual cards. These are the two main reasons why this article was created. To have them merged with a digital card game list would lose the point of why the list of collectible card games article exists in the first place, and is going backwards.


 * In summary, copy the games here to that list you originally intended, but do not merge it. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Counter-point: not all individual subgenres need to be separated from larger lists. Japanese arcade games that read physical collectible cards make up a sizable portion of the other list, but are not separated from it, nor should they be. Splitting out each individual subgenre fragments the larger list and increases the maintenance required to keep the lists up to date and free of spam. It would be perfectly simple to add another column for "sub-genre" or "type" to the larger list, allowing readers to sort by type should they so choose. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that not all subgenres need separate lists, but in this case I feel they do, since collectible cards games are an acceptable subgenre from regular card games. Having a distinct article of digital collectible card games seems necessary. I think that's a bit of hyperbole of increased maintenance. The main issue I see is that the article you wanted to merge with is very broad and ill-defined. If anything, DCCGs from that article, should be copied to this article, and that article needs its focus clarified. The title and the description of the article are pretty much at odds with each other. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The list I've merged to is neither broad nor ill-defined; the scope is clear from the lead. What's ill-defined is this list, which you have restored a pile of spammy redlinks to in contravention of WP:V and which also includes a section of "Standalone digital non-collectible card games", further duplicating the other list. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games seeking broader input for this discussion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be clearer by what you mean when you say "spammy" (I think spam as you use it, makes it almost a useless term, disconnected from what spam actually is). When you say spam, are you objecting to primary sources? If so, there's no problem having primary sources when you're citing the mere existence of something. It amazes me how a lot of experienced wikipedians constantly object to primary sources, but Wikipedia's own policy doesn't state they're off limits all the time. In fact it says they can be used in cases such as this. It may be the reference section needs to be cleaned up, but don't delete entries. Let's try to find references to support them, because they likely exist. If you're going to make large edits like this that may be contested, I'd suggest talking about it here first to find a solution. If I had to guess, you were attempting to pare down this article to as little as possible to show it has nothing, making your attempt to merge it easier. Let's try to cooperate.


 * Anyway, I'll reiterate that the other article is inherently flawed because the title is fairly vague in contrast to the lede, and you admit that on that article's talk page. That's why it's ill-defined, because the title doesn't convey what the lede is trying to say. The article is kind of a motley crew of electronic card games, but strangely omits other electronic games for some reason. When I first looked at it, I was ready to start appending it with all sorts of electronic card games such as Solitaire. I think that article's focus and title is so poorly constructed that the merger should be in this direction, if that article's attempt is to list strategy-based collectible card games in the format of video games - because this article pretty much explicitly states that in the title, though the lede may need to be reworked. However, some of the games listed on that article would not qualify being in this article's list.


 * But back to the point, this article is very clear and distinct in what games belong, because it's not just a solitary list. It's based on the article Digital collectible card game which is explicitly defined. As far as I know the article you are trying to merge to doesn't have a parent article. It's just a hodge-podge collection of random digital card games. This article also originally came from the paper CCG list article. It may just need a short lede to clear matters up (to re-iterate the parent article Digital collectible card game), but rest assured, its focus is more clear than the grab-bag article that you want to merge it with.


 * It's quite possible this article could be expanded to be more inclusive or merged with List of card game-based video games. But, some things that would need to change:


 * This article would need to be defined to note that it is for strategy-based digital collectible card games, but would be inclusive of those card games that did not have expansions. Basically one of the defining pieces of criteria for normal paper collectible card games is that not all the cards can be purchased in one go, which would be at odds with a video game that has all the cards contained within. Games like Magic Online are exempt from this because they do release card game expansions in a digital format. Deck-building games aren't collectible games, and the deck-building is the game mechanic, which is not the CCG gameplay mechanic. In a way, most deck-building games are a somewhat solitaire type of game of constructing a deck you never use. Then of course there are those video games with very lite card game mechanics that compliment the non-card based gameplay. There's a lot of those types of games. It would be disingenuous to include those types of games where the main focus isn't on a card game style of play, and only a mere afterthought. Then there are arcade games which are a hybrid of physical cards that you swipe into the arcade game machine. For those, there isn't an adequate home (if one was ever needed), at least not that I'm aware of. They probably shouldn't be on that article you are trying to merge with - and if there's any on this article, they probably shouldn't be here either. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a bad idea. This article is derivative of its parent article Digital collectible card games. This list article is a natural follow up to those who want to see all the different kinds of DCCGs. The article you're trying to merge with, has no parent article because it's too broad. It's almost akin to fancruft in a way. Why those games on the other article are grouped together I don't know. Why would you eliminate a list article that has a parent article? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be brief. First, as to the spam issue: this list as it presently stands is badly in violation of the list selection criteria, which states that we should avoid creating indiscriminate lists and should "avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever" (ie many of the entries on this list). Primary sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability for this purpose, and it is incumbent on you to provide appropriate sourcing if you wish to restore challenged material.Second, as to scope, I have changed the title of the other list to be more accurate to the stated scope (it now lives at list of card-collecting video games). You continue to claim that the scope is indiscriminate and nonsensical, which is factually inaccurate, as the scope is spelled out clearly in the lead.Third, lists do not necessarily require parent articles, and the fact of having a parent article does not mean a list is required to be under that precise title or scope. In fact, the somewhat-broader scope of the other list arguably serves the digital collectible card game topic better, because it shows readers the evolution of card collecting games from primarily aping real physical card games (Pokémon TCG for GBC, etc), to integrating physical card games (Japanese Data Carddass machines), to being fully digital representations of card games that have no physical component. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't be brief. Be engaged. If redlinks are your issue, unlink them instead of deleting them wholesale; if something needs a source, put a citation needed. An unlinked entry can still be cited, and for lists, citing a primary source is perfectly fine per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. To verify the mere existence of something, a primary source will work just fine and does not qualify as spam. Notability in this instance, only pertains to a game having a stand-alone article, making your point moot since this list is merely documenting a game's existence for the list's sake. Directly addressing your reference to selection criteria policy, it explicitly states: "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" - that's the exact type of thing we're trying to do on this list, and that's where primary sources come in. They are very reliable since they are used to verify the existence of the listing - we're not engaging in any sort of bias here which is the premiere reason we avoid primary sources. As for your second point, now you've broken the entire article, because if you're renaming it to card-collecting video games, the lede needs to be reworked since deck-building games are not card-collecting games (you'll note that article mentions nothing about those style of games collecting cards, because there is no collectibility, the entire game is included in a single purchase, which is what CCGs are referencing when they talk about collectibility). So I still stand by my point, that your favored article is being jammed together, and in your own words, indiscriminately. This article is being very discriminate - it's focus is purely on digital collectible card games. The other article you want to merge with is kind of an abomination, and I reiterate with no coherent focus and no parent article; that's important because it demonstrates this article has focus, whereas your favored article has not demonstrated nearly as much.To your third point, I entirely disagree that the other article shows any evolution, because it conflates CCGs with any other type of digital card game, especially those where cards aren't the primary focus of the game, deck-building games, arcade hybrids, and games where they don't meet the strict definition of what a collectible card game is to begin with... which is a very important point. I implore you to go to the collectible card game and read the full definition of what a CCG exactly is - because I'm fairly certain at this point, your understanding of it is very flawed. Your new title gives the impression that these games are now focused on collecting cards with no card gameplay, like baseball cards? Or is collecting the cards the gameplay? Are you playing as Mario, collecting cards to add to your binder, but don't use them? Where does the strategy come into play while collecting these cards? DCCGs and CCGs are card games first that also involve the aspect of collectibility to expand your game. I could dissect all those games to show you why there is no clear focus, but suffice it to say that swapping words around in an attempt to fix the title of that article shows it's inherently flawed, because all those games are trying to do different things, so what evolution you're talking about is beyond me. We have no such problems at the DCCG article, because the definition there is precise. Go ahead and add all the DCCGs you want to that other article, but for the love of intelligence, don't delete this article when readers want to know only about DCCGs specifically, and will never be able to sort them out in that madness of an article you are trying to merge it with. I think we need to come to an agreement that merging would destroy the encyclopedic understanding of DCCGs and their history as it is presented in this list. The games listed here can be duplicated at the other article, but this article remains put. Yeah it can use some work fixing up, but doesn't nearly every article? Leitmotiv (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're clearly getting nowhere, and you're getting condescending in your edit summaries, so I've listed this at WP:3O in the hopes of getting some other eyes on it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not being condescending. But I do feel that your understanding of the subgenre is lacking, which isn't helping this discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, I'll be your third opinion. Here are my thoughts:
 * Regarding whether an article can be "abandoned" (and quality in general): Not in the literal sense; per WP:NEGLECT, the fact that an article hasn't been edited in over a decade does not mean that it should be deleted, merged, or otherwise removed. That doesn't mean that such articles (especially lists) won't get filled with cruft, but deletion is not cleanup, and presumably neither are merges. I agree that the present list (i.e., List of digital collectible card games) is in a sorry state, but that has no bearing on this merge. Nevertheless, I think given the context in which that word was first used I don't think it was intended to be the main rationale for the merge, nor should it be. Let me now get to the main point.
 * Regarding whether this merge should happen: I agree with Leitmotiv that the old title "List of card game-based video games" was suboptimal for the merge, for the reasons of history and context that he provided (namely, that collectible card games are different from stuff like Bridge or Poker, and digital collectible card games even more so). The new title seems to cover this nicely. From a random spotcheck all of the bluelinked and cited entries of List of digital collectible card games are present in the target, and "List of card-collecting video games" seems conceptually similar enough to warrant a merge. Therefore, I endorse this redirect, but if anyone who is not party to this dispute raises any more concerns not discussed above I suggest that the resultant redirect be taken to RFD for further discussion.

Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sort of? But not really? It would seem that you are also not aware of the big difference between CCGs/DCCGs and any old "card collecting" game. The former fits a very narrow range of criteria, one the most important being: all the cards cannot be collected in a single or a very few small amounts of purchases, which is how the sources define collectibility. PMC seems to be under the impression that the gameplay itself constitutes the collectibility mechanic. In other words, you collect the cards within a single game, limiting the amount of cards you gather in total, i.e. a standalone digital product. A true DCCG or CCG has an ever expanding library of cards as expansions are released. This is a very specific genre that needs it's own separate list and they would be lost in the shuffle of a merge with no easy way to distinguish them. If a merge is happening despite this logic, PMC would need to alter his new table to reflect if these games are true CCGs, but she's already complained of increased workload, so I don't see PMC favoring that, so the easiest solution is to just add them at that other list, and keep this list intact, because this one is derivative of a parent article. 2. The article PMC wants to merge with is still not coherent as to what the games are. It includes non-collectible digital card games such as deck-building card games. It includes video games where card games are an afterthought and not the main gameplay mechanic such as RPGs. It includes hybrids of arcade and physical card games. It's quite frankly, a mess. The current title is not broad enough to include all the entries listed there. To include them all as the lede describes would require a pretentiously long title, something like "Collectible and Non-collectible Strategy/Non-Strategy Card Video Games, Hybrids & other minutiae" and I'm not exaggerating! That's how broad and unfocused that list article is. Small reminder to PMC, CCGs are defined as having as having a strategy-based gameplay mechanic and if they don't, they're not CCGs, but perhaps something like a Collectible Common Deck card game or a Non-collectible customizable card game.Honestly, neither of you have expressed why it's imperative a merger happen. Why can't the two lists be separate but with overlap? Please answer that. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a man, please adjust your post to reflect that.
 * As to PMC would need to alter the new table to reflect if these games are true CCGs - I proposed that above, actually (see my post on the 26th that reads It would be perfectly simple to add another column for "sub-genre" or "type" to the larger list, allowing readers to sort by type should they so choose), but you completely ignored it, and now you are presenting it as though it is some onerous task I am unwilling to do. It really feels to me like you're continually moving the goalposts here.
 * You're operating under a very narrow view of "collectible" and therefore assuming I don't know what the word means because I'm using a broader one. Any video game involving card battling where you don't start with all the cards available to you (and must, in some manner, collect them) is a card-collecting game. Not every such game is a DCCG - we can agree on that, certainly. But every DCCG is in fact a card-collecting game. It makes zero sense to have two lists that cover the same topic, only one of them is narrower, in a less useful format, and flagrantly against WP:LSC. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See, this is where you're entirely wrong. I'm not operating under any viewpoint other than what is the viewpoint of the sources cited at collectible card game, which defines it pretty strictly and have quoted here. I'll remind you, go check that page out. This isn't my personal definition. What I think a CCG is irrelevant. Go read the entire Overview section of the CCG article and you will have a much better understanding of the issue at hand here and with the article you want to merge with and why it has so many problems.Leitmotiv (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll respectfully ask you again to correct the pronouns you use to refer to me, I am not a man and it clearly states as such on my userpage. Additionally, please respond to the point I made about altering the table to reflect "types" or "sub-genres". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to find my errors and fixed one (apologized in the summary notes), but Ctrl F in this novel isn't being too helpful. Can you direct me to my error/s? As for addressing your question, I will, as soon as you do me the pleasure of answering mine that you have not - this isn't a one way street. As for what a CCG is, since you refused to read it the first time - as defined by the sources:


 * "A collectible card game (CCG) is generally defined as a game where players acquire cards into a personal collection from which they create customized decks of cards and challenge other players in matches. Players usually start by purchasing a starter deck that is ready to play, but additional cards are obtained from randomized booster packs or by trading with other players.[14] The goal of most CCGs is to beat one's opponent by crafting customized decks that play to synergies of card combinations. Refined decks will try to account for randomness created by the initial shuffling of the deck, as well as opponent's actions, by using complementary and preferably efficient cards.


 * The exact definition of what makes a CCG is varied, as many games are marketed under the "collectible card game" moniker. The basic definition requires the game to resemble trading cards in shape and function, be mass-produced for trading and/or collectibility, and have rules for strategic gameplay.[15][16] The definition of CCGs is further refined as being a card game in which the player uses his own deck with cards primarily sold in random assortments. If every card in the game can be obtained by making a small number of purchases, or if the manufacturer does not market it as a CCG, then it is not a CCG.[17]"


 * It then goes on to decribe Deck-building games, CCDCGs and NCCGs as not being CCGs. Notably, the article demonstrates the DCCGs are a natural progression of CCGs. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear now to anyone paying attention that PMC does not even know what a CCG is considering that she's using her personal opinion and I'm using one based off cited sources, which is why I have staunchly opposed this merger from the get go. This whole discussion should be re-evaluated with that in mind. Good night, see you tomorrow. Leitmotiv (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, we need third opinions that are at least knowledgeable on the subject matter. Everyone involved should know the definition of a CCG by visiting collectible card game before commenting. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)