Talk:The Lord of the Rings Trading Card Game

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Board and table games High‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Prolific Players"

I've removed the Prolific Players section as I felt it was irrelevant and did not conform to a neutral point of view. Plus it was far too easy to argue over every name on the list, regardless of how good certain people might think they are. If you want to put it back, please discuss it on this page first. Thanks. --Stenun 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't really my point of view persay, basically I took 9 of the 10 players that top the lifetime premiere points list (which is a very accurate judge of a players tournament abilities, located on DGMA.com), and also added the player who is further down on this list (in the 30's or something) but included them because they are currently ranked number one (Michael Perucca). To me this is fairly neutral. If you want to leave it off, I have no problem with that.

I would also like to mention I have interest in expanding this page. I'd just like to create some more depth and detail, create some new headings, etc. Perhaps I should run them by you first? LMK if this is ok, it would be a work in progress for me. My days of playing Lotr competitively are over but I still have interest in it and it is something I am VERY knowledgeable about.

Now there is a different list, WTF. Brad Eire? Dan Clarke? Tubman? Other clowns I have not even heard of? Common, these are not the former top players of the game, at one point when the game was still new they may have held the top spot but that is circumstance (and gained by playing in crappy little local tournaments). Lifetime premiere series points is the only measuring stick that can be applied here.Jonobgood 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands at the moment, with the list of World Champions and runners-up, that's fine. The problem, I feel, comes in if you start including a list of "other good players". Particularly if no indication is given on the page as to how this list is composed. If you absolutely definitely feel that more players should be listed then we should work on coming up with a fair criteria for that list before it is applied to the article. For example, a list of the top 5 ranked players in the world as of the 1st January 2006 would work, with updates every year. Or if you feel so inclined, updates more often. But just a list of random names that the contributor feels qualifies as an "other top player" is meaningless and it violates the NPOV. On a more general note, you don't need run your ideas for an article past anyone if you feel they are good, just implement them. If, however, someone feels differently they will edit it back again. If they don't say anything on the talk page about it, then you should do so yourself and hopefully you can discuss your ideas with others. Entering a revert war solves nothing. Until any further list of players is agreed upon on this talk page, I will delete any further list that appears in the article and I would ask that you do the same. --Stenun 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

Why shouldn't Forums be listen? --[[User:Bobtheorc]

Links

The offical company website and the official game website links don't work. --Burek (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lord of the Rings 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.decktech.net/lotr/treports/treports.php?id=3842&view=2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224162205/http://www.worlds-apart.com/ to http://www.worlds-apart.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]