Talk:Flesh and Blood (card game)

Official name without ampersand: "Flesh and Blood"

As the official name is without ampersand, see e.g. https://fabtcg.com/resources/learn-to-play/, the article name should be renamed to "Flesh and Blood" 2A02:8388:8C2:5880:78F2:FBF5:E330:D3DF (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article seems to be written, in parts, with bias towards the game. (I can't dig much deeper into it right now, as I am a bit busy, sorry) Balnibarbarian (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I hate to jump straight to conclusions, but part of this straight up reads like marketing copy, particularly the second paragraph of the opening. AmberABit (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing used in the 2nd paragraph of the opening was taken word for word from the Channel Fireball article [citation #4]. I added that paragraph. I added most of the content, links and citations on the entire page. I only put in writing on wikipedia what I found already in writing elsewhere. Would it be more appropriate to move that sentence or two down to the critical reviews section?

Are there any other concerns about neutrality in the article? ClarkJ FAB (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are any other neutrality concerns if those have been taken care of.

Sorry to not respond for a while, I've been busy.

I'll go ahead and remove the flag, I guess.

Balnibarbarian (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there may be some other sentences copied from other sources. For example, "All cards with the marvel rarity symbol are much rarer than a normal foil version of their base rarity would be", which is from here. I'm about to take out that sentence, but there may be others. Tacyarg (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ClarkJ FAB (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

A couple of suggestions:

• First, what is this game all about? We currently don't find out what it is exactly until way down the page, after statistics about production runs, etc. A description of the game should be at the top of the article, immediately following the lede.
• Second, the reviews: cherry-picking one favourable phrase from each review makes it seem like a commercial, or something you'd read on the outside of a game box. There's lots of reviews here -- delve into each one and summarize the negative and the positive thoughts. For a good example of reviews offering a variety of comments, see D-Day (game).
• Put all of the tables about publication runs, decks etc at the bottom of the article. A person very interested in the subject might find this content absorbing, but don't make the average reader plow through a lot of tables just to get to written content.

Guinness323 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Content

@ClarkJ FAB The indiscriminate removal of content is surely the best thing to happen to this article. To call it vandalism is an assumption of bad faith on my part. This is not the case. Editors before me have raised concerns that are quite well-founded. This is not even yet mentioning the appropriate tags that call into question the substance of the article. If I am to be blunt, the article suffers from bloat. It's unnecessary.

I can tell that, by your additions and name, you seem to be fond of the game at the very least. I should say that fans can make for great editors, as they are often willing to do research and know much about the subject. However, an article must be concise, objective and direct. They are built by collaborative effort using reliable sources. These sources should be independent. The overwhelming majority of sources, as the article is now, appear to be from the creators of the game. This can be problematic. Especially since a lot of the material just isn't important. Unfortunately, the studio itself is not a great determiner of what makes for a reliable or notable publication. An independent reviewer might, however.

I certainly hope this helps. I think reverting the article to my proposed revision is the cleanest course of action since it's concise, direct and uses independent sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 02:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"surely the best thing to happen" is your subjective perception. Your edit, to delete 99% of the article with no warning, fits Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Disruptive, nonsensical removal. Other card games have much more extensive wikipedia pages devoted to history, product metadata and professional tournament results.

This article has received countless praise from the Flesh and Blood player and fan community. I think the revision of the article preceding your revision is the cleanest course of action.

If sourcing is an issue, would you prefer I just remove all the sources? Similar to how MTG tournament history is represented on wikipedia. Rather than have the player's name and winning decklist link, just leave the player's name with no external link? ClarkJ FAB (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

We could go back and forth on "subjectivity", "disruptive" and "nonsensical" all day and get nowhere. I typically see the "what about this other article" argument from fans. And, truthfully, I rarely find myself disagreeing with this line of thought. That "other article" likely has problems, too.

However, let's take the Zendikar Rising page for example. Does it use Wizard's page and such a little too liberally? Perhaps. But it also has CBR, Polygon and ScreenRant. Not exactly the best, but it works. I imagine you could find more independent sources.

As for tournament play, the Magic: The Gathering page uses sources such as ESPN, the Verge and Star City Games. Does that section use Wizard's stuff, again, perhaps too liberally? It's possible. But when you look at the sum of sources, it's quite clear that there is a healthy abundance of reliable sources. Nevertheless, there's always room for improvement.

Circling back to something I said previously, the List of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour events is an example of something likely problematic. It cites a very similar problem of relying far too much on material too closely connected with the subject (such as the subject itself). This is that "other article". It does have problems. It should probably be fixed. However, it having problems is no excuse for this article to have problems.

But let us examine this page's sources. Fabtcg.com appears to heavily outweigh others. Again, they aren't a great source for deciding what could make for noteworthy coverage, as they have a stake in the matter.

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I would consider it reasonable to include something that says "The rules state" and cite the games official rules. Those are the rules, and if I were to make a safe bet, I imagine the developers of the game know the rules fairly well. However, something like the "2020 and COVID-19" section feels less justified. Especially since the rest of the article documents just about every action the company has taken from that point on and uses the company as a source. Unfortunately, it is not the best source to use for deciding whether or not that kind of material is noteworthy (it probably isn't, to be honest).

I hope this helps. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 03:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would, however, like to admit that for the professional or competitive scene, I don't really know what the best way to handle it is. If I had to take a guess, it likely isn't the way it is now. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 03:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ClarkJ FAB. Your opinion is highly subjective especially regarding what is important and what is not. The real issue here is that you indiscriminately eliminated a bunch of content with references, which is likely to cause a stir. You should have discussed it here first. As it stands, I agree your actions appear as vandalism, and I wonder if it's motivated.

I created the article. I am not a fan. I've never played the game. As for the COVID section, it's debatable if it's worth mentioning, but I will say that COVID in the CCG scene has created a large sea change in how games are played and invested in. It was also pivotal in this game's success, and a few others as it relates to Magic: the Gathering.

Regardless, you make many suggestions here, which in light of your outright deletion of a majority of the article, suggest improving the article was the best move here, and not the alternative you chose to go with. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the extensive discussions above that outline excellent ways of improving the article, perhaps. Let's see, the first discussion, last year, discusses a move. However, the actual name in the lede didn't change until recently. Then, a few months ago, we have a couple others who are worried about the writing and tone of the article. Then shortly after that is another editor who expressed such similar concerns and found themselves embattled in a heated discussion with...no one.

Well, I believe I have found myself in an odd situation. I must correct myself. There weren't any extensive discussions on improving the article on sourcing, neutrality, tone and content. It appears that, had I come here with a talk discussion first, I almost certainly would have been met with the usual crowd. That is, well, nobody. But, yes, I also ruined the sourcing by removing Twitter and a Superjump article that no longer exists. Plus a Deloitte article that's just an interview, which, again, could raise issues on independence of reasonable sourcing.

As I said, the removal is the best thing to happen to this article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually must note something, first. There is a link to the Superjump article. However, it is behind a Medium paywall. I tried to find the original source from the actual magazine, and that is where it no longer exists. Even the Internet archive failed me there and the page was messed up. It's probably a good source. However, I really can't read much beyond the beginning, which says very little of value. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, just because you can't personally access an article, it isn't grounds for removal or a demotion to its quality. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

How you managed to come to this conclusion from such a brief post is beyond me. If you consider removing the 300+ website material and sum of trivial mentions to be vandalism, destructive or demoting the quality, then I fear that there is nothing I can say to convince you that this article needs changes.

However, I see no harm in trying once more in even more simple terms.

In October 2020, LSS announced European and Canadian distribution

20 October 2020: LSS announced an official content partnership with Trading Card Game website ChannelFireball.com.

28 October 2020: LSS announced Flesh and Blood would be available on TCGplayer.com, a marketplace for TCG sealed product and single cards.

Super Rares were discontinued after Arcane Rising.

Starting with Uprising, there is no differentiation between First Edition and Unlimited Cold Foil versions of cards found in the Token slot of a booster pack cannot be played in Draft if opened.

This is largely trivial. This is for people who only really care about the game. This is material that comes from the company website and sources. This, and it apparently must be said several times, is not independent. The company itself should not be a reasonable benchmark for its own noteworthiness.

22 September 2022: James White applied to the US Patent Office as inventor of an apparatus and method of playing a card game. This is someone searching up the patent. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you mention it's value, ergo... Leitmotiv (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

??? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you insist on deleting things like tournament history and booster set history and you're not also taking the same editorial liberties on the MTG pages which hold the same type of content? ClarkJ FAB (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in. The edit made is not vandalism, which requires explicitly bad-faith intent. The edit Maxx made is essentially similar to a TNT or a less complete overhaul compared to blank-and-redirect. Trimming this article to just <5 sources is not the best move, but characterising that as vandalism (which has a narrow definition) is inaccurate. Even disagreements or misguided edits aren't vandalism.

That said, I think that this article needs significant changes. Out of the 365 references, there are 333 hits to the studios (see fabtcg), which is excessively non-independent. I think that having 90% of the page based on non-independent sources is undue. There are many other issues IMO, including unreliable sourcing (i.e., with no editorial policies or staff listings), external links, tables that border on being a product listing, and the like. Now I understand that I have different perspectives on what sourcing constitute as reliable with many in this thread. But I tried to improving this by removing several tables that I believed is an indiscriminate of product listings, which was reverted. This is fine, and I strongly recommend that other editors weigh in and discuss further. I don't have any motivation here and, other than having a few user rights that only aid in maintenance of this project, is just regular editor and a Board and card games WikiProject participant. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A TNT edit is such a drastic move that it's usually not something decided unilaterally but in advance on talk pages. The user may have meant well, but in the future they should be more cautious and thoughtful. 16:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Leitmotiv (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

After such prompt and verbose replies to earlier messages, I find it strange Maxx has not yet responded to my question regarding a TNT of similar content on pages for other games. ClarkJ FAB (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I did respond to it. The short version is that the problems of another article do not justify the very same problems being present on other articles. While this essay is about deletions, WP:WHATABOUTX touches on this. In other words, just because the MTG articles may be bad, that's no excuse for the same mistakes to be made here. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Maxx, I'll concede the point. I'm not trying to justify the existence of the FAB article content which you perceived to be problematic and deleted. My concern now is, other articles for other games (MTG) have the same types of content, therefore the same types of problems. My precise question to you is, why haven't you deleted similar problematic content existing in the other articles? Specifically, the MTG Expansion sets article, MTG Pro Tour History, MTG World Championship History, MTG Pro Tour qualification information, just to name a few. The contents of these MTG articles is the same type of content you deleted from the Flesh and Blood article. For you to not also delete that content from the MTG articles is to express bias for MTG. Am I wrong to draw that conclusion? ClarkJ FAB (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be wrong to assume that of me. The reason as to why I haven't gotten to that is because of time, mainly. They certainly do have problems if some of the talk page stuff is to be believed. But this isn't the place to really discuss the problems with those articles or why I haven't done anything to them yet. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will monitor those pages, awaiting your edits. After your edits to the MTG articles, I should be able to use whatever you leave remaining as a model to correctly re-build the FAB page, would you agree with that approach? You were able to quickly re-delete my FAB article work after I restored it from your first delete. Since all it takes is highlighting and a Delete keystroke, I suspect your edits on those MTG articles are coming soon. ClarkJ FAB (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Maxx - it has been 6 months since you mass-deleted most of the content on this FABTCG page. You said the primary reason you haven't deleted the same content types for similar MTG pages is "time, mainly". Hopefully enough "time" has passed for you to assess and edit those other articles. I just reviewed the four MTG pages linked above, you've only made one edit to those four pages, which was to remove some longform text on the MTG World Championship page. Interestingly, when you made your edit, you allowed the history of the MTG World Championship (in table list form showing player name, location, and date) to remain, despite deleting the FABTCG World Championship list history. Can we now assume you approve of that type of content in Wikipedia pages for competitive card games? I'm wondering which editing standard is acceptable to you now. Thanks. 24.231.224.52 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The matter had been brought up numerous times before. No one wanted to discuss it. I am fairly certain that I have already said this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

But I am arguing against the statement that the deletion by Maxx looks like vandalism, which explicitly requires a bad faith intent. FWIW I believe that both Maxx and Clark have good faith intentions. Further, I think that the current article, which has had some appropriate but not as drastic trimming, is in considerably better shape. VickKiang (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate Future Restructuring

The biggest issue with the previous changes made to this article are not that content was removed but how and why. The bloat of content could have been moved to their own pages to retain their usefulness without making the page hilariously barren, and to draw a parallel to the obvious, the Magic the Gathering page has links to more comprehensive yet not immediately explanatory information such as core rules concepts, formats, the full list of sets, organized play, etc.

Honestly, the blanket removal of nearly all content without a discussion is pretty much literally vandalism. It doesn't matter who has the opinion of it being useful or not, the fact of the matter is that there is a large amount of information and it should go somewhere if not on the primary page. It's hilarious to me that not even a single set is mentioned by name in the new set heading, along with completely outdated information. To call this anything other than vandalism is a joke. 108.180.226.192 (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. But, just to be clear, much of it was an exhaustive and all-inclusive collection of the material, which is generally not appropriate. The material had little weight to support it. By this I mean that it was almost entirely sourced by the company or people who were closely aligned with it. Naturally, the company itself cannot be a good or reasonable judge of what should be included on this page. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of Wikipedia's own editing policies and guidelines. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There are three main issues here. The first is that, for the reason given that the article was neutered, content deletion is not the suggested method of handling the issue. The second is that, the content that remains is either missing information or erroneous (mostly due to missing information). The third is that, information from a primary source is not arbitrarily biased, especially if it does not contain opinions and is required to maintain verifiable accuracy.

For example:

• The origin of the game's name is described, but not the events during COVID where they made a digital platform anyway.

• Gameplay pieces are described, but no actual gameplay is detailed.

• The long list of hero types is not necessary. However, they are anyway, and only 9 of the 14 types are listed.

• Two formats are listed, and one of them is listed with an incomplete set of differences compared to the other. (Blitz uses 40 not 60 cards in addition to using young heroes - there are of course other differences but of what is mentioned is not correct).

• Some tournament structures such as "The Calling" and "World Championships" are mentioned, but not the rest for some reason.

• Some prize pools are listed from very arbitrary events. There is nothing noteworthy about these numbers listed like "the first tournament prize pool" or "highest prize pool." These numbers are basically meaningless without reference, especially given the large number of events with prize pools which are unlisted.

• Sets are listed as having both limited and unlimited printings, but this only applies to some sets. Obviously this can be rectified with a set listing, but it for some reason is not present.

Yes, a huge number of the tables in the previous version of the article were totally unnecessary padding to something managed by the source material's own channels, but the notable parts of those things is lost to a massive amount of content deletion which has primarily resulted in incomplete information with errors. Incomplete information of this nature implies what is and is not important about that specific information, which upon comparison to the previous version of the article shows that it is clearly not fully accurate.

Much of the information, while coming from a primary source, is still objective information that fills in much of the blanks of the broken information that remains. Submitting a version of the article with that many errors does not improve neutrality of the article simply because the primary source is avoided at all costs. This is not a valid way to follow the Wikipedia guidelines as it does not leave any remaining information that is maintains accuracy. 108.180.226.192 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This article, as is the case, or should be the case, with many articles, is not a compendium for the sum of all truths or information pertaining to the given subject matter. Instead, the article should be a concise distillation of general facts on the topic, typically in such a way that the average reader could understand it. In other words, one must ask whether or not the abundance of the excised content threatens the overarching cohesion of the article to the degree that it stifles its intelligibility.

In your case, it also must be asked whether or not your suggestions add or take away from the summary-style expectations. Most of them are unnecessary to the average reader, who I can assure you is not particularly interested in the difference between, say, young heroes and adult heroes. It is also undoubtedly arguable that they may not care about living legend points. However, Polygon covered this in the context of the competitive scene and the fact that any hero was brought back. However, excluding the particular hero who was brought back from retirement does not hurt the summary-style integrity of the article.

The only point I really agree with is the lack of gameplay detail. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a distillation of facts. There are errors in several places which were not there before. The correct way the article should have been handled is finding or requesting secondary sources to maintain accuracy of the article within the realm of the notable material. The non-notable material could then be moved to sub-articles (or removed entirely) if they are non-notable (only after the relevant discussions as notability is subjective). The current remaining notable material exists without context explaining their notability, or the content is misleading to their headings.

You seem to miss the point again by glazing over the list I provided, as you have not actually commented to the content of the list correctly. The difference between young and adult heroes is not the issue, the issue is that the information that has been provided is incorrect because the full context is not present and creates an inaccurate comparison. If any information at all is presented it must be verifiably accurate, which means either A) not including it at all or B) including the additional information required to support the information that has been provided. You seem to be focusing entirely on A which is the removal of content. Again, this is not the recommended method for ensuring neutrality of the article, nor is the article in its majority a base of opinionated content which qualifies for that as a reason for excision of the content.

The current article is not a distillation of facts nor is it unbiased. Its headings are unclear to their topics, it provides information which is incomplete or misleading, and it is missing content that readily solves these problems from sources which are readily available (even from secondary sources). You seem to assume that all of the content is both non-notable, and biased, and use this as a means to leverage deletion, rather than going through the recommended steps of either searching for and providing citation, or requesting citation, and discussing if what remains is notable enough to remain included (at the very least included on a sub-page or not at all), given that someone previously determined it notable enough to be included in the first place. Removal of the page at whim, then justifying it in a post-removal discussion based on a single rule which barely qualifies for this page is not good enough to justify its current state given the number of issues and the recommended method for handling them. Especially in comparison to other articles of this type.

---

As an aside I'm curious as well about the contention of the article "reading like an advertisement" given the article is literally about a product. If that is the concern then all articles present on wikipedia about products should be purged with the same relentless scrutiny until only vague articles like "competitive card games" remains, with incomplete descriptions of gameplay pieces without any actual gameplay details (as is the current case for this article). All products at some point must be sourced as the origin of themselves (since that is their nature), with the addition of supporting sources. The idea that this version of the article is the ideal state is not only not supported by guidelines for what to do to an article that does not meet content standards, but also on its own does not stand up to a measure of accuracy or neutrality. The explicit negation of certain notable elements especially in comparison to all other articles of a similar nature and their readily available sources (primary or not) clearly demonstrate an overzealousness to maintain a single rule at the cost of others. Which is also not suggested as a recommended method for improving articles. 108.180.226.192 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, numerous editors have voiced their concerns about the material, either on this page or when their edits were reverted. If all of this is to say that you take issue with a potential error, then by all means fix it. This isn't my article. But the original issue was on leaving the article "barren" and that the removal was "vandalism". I addressed that. I wouldn't say it's missing the point when that was the original point. For the rest of what you have said, I think much of that can be lumped in the category of content meant for a specific audience (a long-standing issue with articles like this and MTG). However, I am not the sole judge of what should be allowed. It's easy to criticize my approach. However, I think this state of supposed barrenness is much better than the previous ballooning of undue and unnecessary content, which I fear would have done nothing for pretty much any point that has been made so far.

But, again, if you think it's incomplete -- add to it. An article is never truly done.

If you're referring to the comment about it sounding like marketing copy, then this is an example of what that would read like:

The core mission of Legend Story Studios is "to bring people together in the flesh and blood through the common language of playing great games." as was the case in this edit by Piotrus. This article wasn't/isn't the worst offender by any means.

A much more egregious example was in this edit by QuarksAndElectrons on 4D Film The eight-minute film was projected upon five 10-meter-high screens trimmed by programmable LED lighting effects (833 lighting cues in eight minutes). Audiences were especially captivated by the 4-D effects, which included lighting, mist, and vibrating seats. With its 4-D wind and rain effects, gives audiences an amazing visual and tactile experience. Although there was no dialogue in the film, the excellent visual and audio effects make the film accessible to audiences with different cultural and language backgrounds

If the tone really sounds like someone is trying to sell you something, then that part should probably be changed. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)