Dear sir, may I inquire why you changed the pictures of the great minion card Magma Rager? 220.127.116.11 19:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- The previous image was out of date. Magma Rager has since been updated to be a member of the Elemental family as of Journey to Un'Goro. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- But Magma Rager is a Basic, not a Classic. 18.104.22.168 13:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a while ago you added trivia to a bunch of cards whose card art were originally used in the WoW TCG. There was a discussion about this a long while ago at Talk:Card art#TCG, and it seemed like the consensus was that it's unnecessary to list that "The art for this Hearthstone card was originally used for a completely unrelated TCG character who only appeared on a single card" because it's not really relevant to Hearthstone and, for the most part, Hearthstone cards aren't intended to depict the same thing as the TCG art they're reusing (same thing goes for spells and weapons, BTW). The exception was when such TCG characters were more of actual characters - that is, they appeared or were mentioned on more cards than just one, and were thus a bit more notable, or in cases where a Hearthstone card reuses art originally intended for a character who exists in other games or lore outside the TCG (for instance, Malygos actually depicting Kalecgos or Chillmaw depicting Sindragosa). Edit: In cases like these, I think it just creates some really weird and awkward repetition to have two trivia notes, one stating "This card comes from the TCG for the card General Lightsbane" and then, below that "The card art depicts General Lightsbane". In my view it's best in these cases to just keep the latter note since it's a character from outside the TCG.
It doesn't bother me overmuch that those trivia sections are there and I suppose it doesn't really hurt the wiki, but I do think it's somewhat redundant, especially since readers who are really curious about card art origins can usually just look at the full art file, which usually includes a link to the TCG gallery on the official WoW site or some other similar source (at least for classic and Basic cards). I'll remove some of the more recent ones, but I probably won't go through and remove all of the stuff you added, (mainly because I don't want to spend all that time and effort to undue your well-intentioned work) but I don't think we need to continue listing such trivia for future articles. Obviously, this isn't something that comes up a lot anymore since Blizzard commissions a lot more original art than they reuse old stuff nowadays, but it does still occur occasionally (Chillblade Champion), so it's something to keep in mind, I think.
You're free to disagree, of course, and an argument can certainly be made for including the information, but I personally think it's more irrelevant than noteworthy in most cases. --DeludedTroll (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly think it makes sense to include, it's just extra trivia and having the information available (especially since there isn't really a good source of information other than this website post my edits to find this information) doesn't really hurt anything. Makes about as much sense to include as literally anything you'd put in a "trivia" section anyways. Either way, it was just a nice little project for me to work through, keeping me busy. --Bannanawaffles (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- After thinking about it some more, I still don't think it adds much and is not terribly relevant to Hearthstone, but I suppose you're right in that it's about as trivia-worthy as most of anything else, and, again, it doesn't really harm the wiki. In any case, you did a good job of formatting it in a clean, neat way and such, and... yeah, alright, I guess we can keep it. I'm not exactly the sole authority on deciding what's interesting or relevant enough to include on a Hearthstone wiki, and I guess there are readers out there who are interested in knowing which Hearthstone art is from the TCG and which is custom-made.
- Mostly, it's just cases like Malygos and Stampeding Kodo where I think it's highly redundant to have two trivia notes saying the same thing. There it's probably better to just combine them or leave the note that already exists about the "incorrect" art. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)