Talk:Harry Potter Trading Card Game

Redundancy

I think that listing the cards is somewhat redundant since you can find the same cards listed elsewhere on the www. For example www.pojo.com/harrypotter has a complete list and this site is listed in the "external links section of this article. What do you think?

Does anyone know the dates of when AAH and Chamber sets were released?

I think there might be a call to list all the cards on Wikipedia, since the game is out of production, and the external links really could stop working at any time. However, the list was only partial in that it did not include cards from the Quidditch Cup or Diagon Alley expansion packs. I don't think it helps to have a "kind of complete" list of cards. If someone wants to organize this by all expansion packs, maybe with their own pages so interested parties can check it out, I think that's probably cool. If not, maybe the interest isn't really there. Partial list removed for now. --Buzz 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line that stated thet many fans were hoping for another expansion because not many people are interested any more and WOTC seems to have no inclination toward making more cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.102.211 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Card Sets (in order of release) - Number of Card Per Expansion Pack Errors

In the List of Card Sets (in order of release), section, I have found two errors, first being Expansion - Diagon Alley (81 cards), which there where 80 cards in total and secondly in Expansion - Chamber of Secrets (143 cards), where there are 140 cards in total. I have corrected these errors. - Hpfan9374 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Most of the lead section is never again addressed in the body of the article—significant change is needed per WP:Lead.
• History shouldn't be "brief"—can merge Playing online, Buying cards, and List of card sets into History section.
• When article has resolved the issues listed below, it should go through a serious copy edit.
• A couple sections are just lists and should be conveyed in prose.

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

• No. Meat of the article (Game play) only comes from one source (#8); additionally, the source is a circular reference to the Wizards of the Coast wikipedia page -- wikipedia should never cite itself.

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• For the most part

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Good

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• Only one image of the back-side of card used in infobox—okay, but would be nice to have more pictures—perhaps of the types of cards listed or of people playing the game.

Conclusion

The article has serious structural, sourcing, and copy edit issues and will likely take longer than one week to fix, so I must fail the article this time around. Hope to see it back in the GAN process another time. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

lists in the article

I was reading Wikipedia:Embedded list and that article made it seem that lists of the form in the "buying cards" section was ok. I'm going to try here a prose version of the card sets section. Please leave feedback on which you think in best.

List format

1. Base Set — Harry Potter Trading Card Game (116 cards)
2. Expansion — Quidditch Cup (80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares) (November 2001)
3. Expansion — Diagon Alley (80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares) (March 2002)
4. Expansion — Adventures at Hogwarts (80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares) (June 2002)
5. Expansion — Chamber of Secrets (140 cards plus 55 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares) (October 2002)

Prose format

Cards in this game were released in sets, the first being what is now called the Base Set, which consists of 116 cards. The next set was the Quidditch Cup expansion which has 80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares (November 2001). This was followed by the Diagon Alley expansion set which has 80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares (March 2002). Next was the Adventures at Hogwarts expansion set which contains 80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares (June 2002). The last set released was the Chamber of Secrets expansion which has 140 cards plus 55 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares (October 2002). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathman1550 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of redundancy could be eliminated—how about this?

"Since the 116-card base set of cards was first released for the game, four expansion sets have been introduced to vary play. The first three sets, which each consist of 80 cards plus 30 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares, include Quidditch Cup (November 2001), Diagon Alley (March 2002), and Adventures at Hogwarts (June 2002). The fourth set released was the Chamber of Secrets, which has 140 cards plus 55 Foil or Hologram Portrait Premium rares (October 2002)."

Pictures of the expansion sets would be helpful, or maybe help explain the differences between the distinct sets. Best --Eustress (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Circular ref

Just an additional note on the GA review that I'm putting here for want of a better place - while I agree that the article didn't meet the criteria, the reviewer claims that one of the references was a circular reference to Wikipedia. This isn't actually the case. It's a reference to the Wizards of the Coast instructions book for the game, with a link to Wizards of the Coast in the "author" section. Just clearing that up. Frickeg (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're trying to call a cite book reference currently is just a circular reference because of the lack of and incorrect information presented in the reference. You have Wizards of the Coast as last name, authorlink and publisher; then, year=2002 and title=Harry Potter Trading Card Game: Advanced Rules; thus, the improper format only refers to a Wikipedia article. To avoid the circular reference, the last name field needs to be fixed and more fields need to be included. Please follow format presented at Template:Cite book. --Eustress (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed this to a reference for the rules on Pojo.com, which in turn is just a copy of the rules booklet published by Wizards. Oh, I forgot to remove the tag, I'll go do that now. Mathman1550 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but since you changed the ref to a website, you should now use a cite web template for the reference. I have updated it for this reference, but you will most likely need to do this for all other references to achieve GA status. Best --Eustress (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding fussy, none of the information in what was a legitimate cite book reference was incorrect. Wizards of the Coast was the author, and I was citing the rulebook that comes with the game. I provided all the information that the rulebook itself provided. WOTC was certainly the publisher, the year came from the book, and the title was that of the rulebook. Frickeg (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about onesource

I was reading in Template:Onesource#Usage and it seems to me that the {{onesource}} is for when citations are inappropriate or misinterpreted. On the other hand I can not find anywhere in WP:Citing sources that shows a section needs to have more than one source. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, or correct the Template:Onesource#Usage section to be more plain in meaning what the tag is used for in this article. Thanks Mathman1550 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I'm going to assume that I am correct that the onesource template should only be used when 1. the entire article depends on only one source, or 2. when the one source in a section has been misinterpreted. Since the section in this article is neither, I will remove the tag. Mathman1550 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter Trading Card Game. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66r0YvEm9?url=http://www.praguepost.com/ to http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0504/busi1.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizards.com/harrypotter/main.asp?x=welcome

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Harry Potter Trading Card Game Back.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)