Talk:Fat Stack: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>Corveroth No edit summary |
>Game widow No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is it worth it to have a page for this format? No one seems to have come up with a real set of rules, people just make it up as they go. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 02:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | Is it worth it to have a page for this format? No one seems to have come up with a real set of rules, people just make it up as they go. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 02:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
: The lack of any source outside of the linked Wizards ''archive'' page makes me wonder if this is really [ | : The lack of any source outside of the linked Wizards ''archive'' page makes me wonder if this is really [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]. Is there any evidence of the format being discussed on community sites? Otherwise, this may simply be something that Wizards observed via market research or hearsay and reported as a format at an ''unknown time in the past''. If that is the case, this page can probably go. [[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk:Corveroth|talk]]) 04:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
:: Yeah, I've never seen anyone play it, and there a very few articles about it. There are also so many holes in the rules that I've seen, it would be difficult to play. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 05:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | :: Yeah, I've never seen anyone play it, and there a very few articles about it. There are also so many holes in the rules that I've seen, it would be difficult to play. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 05:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
::: Anecdotes aren't evidence, and rules quality is not a criteria for having a page. If there is sufficient sourcing to make the page notable, it can stay. [[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk:Corveroth|talk]]) 06:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ::: Anecdotes aren't evidence, and rules quality is not a criteria for having a page. If there is sufficient sourcing to make the page notable, it can stay. [[User:Corveroth|Corveroth]] ([[User talk:Corveroth|talk]]) 06:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:36, 10 February 2017
Is it worth it to have a page for this format? No one seems to have come up with a real set of rules, people just make it up as they go. KingSupernova (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The lack of any source outside of the linked Wizards archive page makes me wonder if this is really notable. Is there any evidence of the format being discussed on community sites? Otherwise, this may simply be something that Wizards observed via market research or hearsay and reported as a format at an unknown time in the past. If that is the case, this page can probably go. Corveroth (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've never seen anyone play it, and there a very few articles about it. There are also so many holes in the rules that I've seen, it would be difficult to play. KingSupernova (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)