Talk:Hearthstone

Removal of references

Wikipedia's Manual of Style states: "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." As the content is neither repeated nor cited elsewhere in the article, persisting in removal of references constitutes both pointy behaviour and vandalism. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 IeSF World Championship controversy

Here are some relevant links:

• PC Gamer - Hearthstone tournament explains why women aren't allowed to play
• IeSF tournament announcement on FaceBook
• IeSF statutes (Article 5, Cleause 3 explicitly states "Discrimination of any kind against lineage, gender, religion, politics, individual, organization or any reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.")
• IeSF press release - IeSF Board has made decision to make their event “Open for All”

-- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is over, the IeSF has formally reversed its gender-specific policies. There are now two events, one for everyone and the original woman-only groups remains. Hearthstone is open to all. Therefore, I am not sure that this content belongs in this article.

The organization released a statement explaining the news on its website.

"On 2nd of July, 2014, the IeSF's policy about gender division, which separates the female division and the male division, has been brought into question. The IeSF has listened to the gaming community and has carefully considered their opinions. Upon hearing these concerns, the IeSF convoked an emergency session of the IeSF Board to respond," the group said.

"As a result, IeSF shall have two event categories: "Open for All" events and events that are reserved for women. The events which were initially set aside as the male division will now be open to all genders, and the events which were initially set as the female division will remain as they were."

"The IeSF Board addressed its reason for maintaining events for women, citing the importance of providing female gamers with ample opportunities to compete in eSports--currently a male-dominated industry. Female gamers make up half of the world's gaming population, but only a small percentage of eSports competitors are women. The IeSF's female-only competitions aim to bring more diversity to competitive play by improving the representation of women at these events. Without efforts to improve representation, e-Sports can't achieve true gender equality."Frmorrison (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

i corrected a piece of wrong information

the article said that wings had to be completed before next wing could be accessed but, i knew that to be wrong as i have accessed wings just by purchasing them. i therefore corrected it from completed to puchased as they have to be purchased in order.84.213.46.153 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre abbreviations

So, about video game genres and their respective abbreviations: Per WP:VG/MOS, genres shouldn't be abbreviated, only if necessary and truly common enough. Collectable card game isn't known as CCG as massively multiplayer online role-playing game is known as MMORPG. To introduce the game's genre as collectable card game (CCG) and not use CCG throughout the article (which we shouldn't, as Wikipedia maintains a formal tone) doesn't make sense either, so I've undone Godsy (talk · contribs)'s edits for this reason. Concerning the infobox, WP:ACRO states "To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full." Since there's still plenty of space left in the genre field, there's no need to use an abbreviation there (which we shouldn't in the first place). --Soetermans. T / C 12:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just returning it to the lead as it had been there a while, and I thought it was appropriate there. I don't put much weight in the test of time, and my thinking it "was appropriate" isn't a good reason either. I checked the Manual of Style and brushed up on WP:MOSABBR. You make a good point about the infobox, perhaps I was misguided on that front. I found an example of using the abbreviation in the lead (though that page is tagged with having multiple issues), though I checked another more prominent one and it did not list the acronym in parenthesis. As there is not a guideline for this specifically (to my knowledge), it could really go either way I suppose. I do think that it's better to spell it out fully throughout the rest of the article, so perhaps having the abbreviation there serves no purpose. I would however, not be opposed to and possibly support "(CCG)" being restored to the lead. @Soetermans:notification —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Collectible card game abbreviates itself this way. I would judge that "common enough". --Izno (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And first-person shooter of course mentions FPS, but we don't introduce that abbreviation in every first-person shooter article either. Wikipedia is written for a large audience. Let's say we do use CCG for that couple of times that 'collectable card game' is used in the article, can we assume that the reader still knows what the letters stand for? --Soetermans. T / C 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If it were a TCG (Trading Card Game), I would say yes. CCG is less common however, so I am unsure. I'd probably lean towards no. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't mention its a MTG rip off

Doesn't mention its a MTG rip off Which is kinda important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertttttttt (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source that specifically discusses this, it's irrelevant if it's similar to MTG, or dozens of other CCGs. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just pointing out NPOV, interesting how u an editor don't go and google cred net references and add them. Have u ever played the games/know about them? Its clearly a mtg rip off to anyone who played the games. Just happens to be similar many things the same just dumbed down. Similar yet nobody who developed hearthstone ever saw MTG....... Several of the developers worked on MTG BTW. --Ertttttttt (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. Forums and blogs can't be used. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WOW I bet you would go mental if I started deleting everything not referenced in the article? Did you learn about patents so u can tell me about them?--Ertttttttt (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add a citation needed tag next to any claim in the article you feel needs sources. Often times the sources are already there but we don't tag every single sentence with them, as it's not necessary. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So now references are not required? LOL so theres a reference for something in the article possibly at the bottom. That's not how citations work!

"Each Hearthstone match is a one-versus-one battle between two opponents. Gameplay in Hearthstone is turn-based, with players taking turns to play cards from their hand, casting spells, equipping weapons, or summoning 'minions' to do battle on their behalf. Unlike card games like Magic: The Gathering, the opposing player has no means to interactively interrupt or counter the current player's action during their turns, though may play cards on their turn that will create events that automatically respond to the other player's actions. Games may be between two players, or one human player and one computer-controlled opponent.

"Each player is represented by their chosen 'hero', an important character from Warcraft lore. Each hero represents a particular class, determining the special cards and unique hero power available to them. Each hero has 30 Health - if that number is reduced to zero, the hero is destroyed, and the controlling player has lost the game. The available classes, along with their hero name, are Mage (Jaina Proudmoore or Medivh), Priest (Anduin Wrynn), Warlock (Gul'dan), Paladin (Uther the Lightbringer), Warrior (Garrosh Hellscream or King Magni Bronzebeard), Druid (Malfurion Stormrage), Hunter (Rexxar or Alleria Windrunner), Rogue (Valeera Sanguinar) and Shaman (Thrall). Players can choose to play using one of several pre-assembled 'basic' decks or a deck of their own making. While many cards are available to heroes of any class (the neutral cards), a substantial portion is limited to a specific class, giving each hero their own strengths and unique possibilities."

so no references required? How do we know whos a warlock, druid or even those names exist in game? References!--Ertttttttt (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume you deliberately misunderstand me. Yes, references are required, but no, we do NOT have to put a reference to every single sentence, unless it is likely to be challenged or controversial. If you truly believe there is no source in the entire article that can cover these details, feel free to tag it or remove it as I've said before. I can already tell you every detail is covered by the review sources though. -- ferret (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to add about standard and wild.

And should be added about it's argument. Even if only in Korea, many complaints have been raised about the patch. Lifenjoyman (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Standard and wild are not officially released yet, so since it is not live yet there is not much to say. Also, while people on forums have complained about the new formats, those are not reliable sources. I mentioned that there will be two new formats and that note has been there for a few months. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Hearthstone (video game). Consensus not to make this the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though, so base name remains dab page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft → Hearthstone
• Hearthstone → Hearthstone (disambiguation)

– Heroes of Warcraft subtitle dropped from all branding about the base game Cornea Scratcher (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Malformed move request format fixed by me in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think my bot is just confused here, thinking that Hearthstone: is another WP:NAMESPACE. I guess I need to fix it to check for valid namespaces. wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Hearthstone" is already being used since other articles could use the name, so if this article was renamed it would need to be "Hearthstone (video game)" (this is already being used as a redirect to the current page). This branding change was a silent move by Blizzard, they removed the name from their logo on the website/game and told the subreddit to also remove the subtitle. There is no press release so I am not sure if it is offical. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Frmorrison. Moving this is currently premature until we can affirm that "HoW" was officially dropped from all Hearthstone branding (not just as we see on game screen logos). Once we can affirm this with sourcing, then a move request can be made, but as noted, it should go to "(video game)" as there are many larger uses of "Heartstone" that are just as common as the video game. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, I don't think this is premature. "Hearthstone" is the WP:COMMONNAME and not simply the current company-recognized name; the only reason we use the subtitle in the title is WP:NATURALDIS. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  The issue is more that we don't presently have evidence that can be sourced to a third-party that the NATURALID of "Heroes of Warcraft" no longer is applicable. If there was a press release from Blizzard that said they have opted to drop "HoW" from the branding, then this move makes 100% complete sense. But right now we're just reacting to a change made in the battle.net client and website which is far less compelling. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  My contention is that this is not a reaction but instead a long-overdue renaming based on the COMMONNAME. It happens to have been started as such a reaction, but I think there is sufficient evidence in reliable sources's use of the Hearthstone moniker (far above the use of Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft) to clearly support a move to the video game parenthetic disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  Changing to Support move to "Hearthstone (video game)". In reviewing appropriate policies from the above thread, I agree that there is sufficient precedent if a subtitle is not normally part of the common name (even before this apparent rebranding), that parenthetical disambiguation is acceptable. I definitely do not agree with pushing the disambiguation page out of that slot, however; the other uses are as equal if not moreso than the game itself. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Masem: what other uses? On the disambig page, the first entry is a dictionary definition non-article (and thus is ineligible to be the primary topic) whilst the other three are not referred to as just "Hearthstone", unlike the game. Also pinging @Frmorrison: whom gave a similar argument Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  The actual term of "Hearthstone", for one. Yes, we don't have a specific article on it, but that's far more permanent a term than the video game. Contemporary topics should always be "second banana" in terms of name importance to long-term, fundamental cultural terms. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft -> Hearthstone (video game) per my comment in re to Masem and probably a bad usurpation of hearthstone after which Hearthstone is named. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose there are real world subjects on the dab page. Move to Hearthstone (video game) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hearthstone (video game) because of the fact they've dropped the subtitle, but I oppose the nom's proposed name. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose request as stated, Support move to Hearthstone (video game). -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Could change Hearthstone to Hearthstone (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornea Scratcher (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Cornea Scratcher: Yes, but you need to show that this is the primary topic for the name "Hearthstone". Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Anarchyte: This is PRIMARYTOPIC because the first entry on the disambig page is disqualified as not being an article and the other three are not referred to as just "Hearthstone", unlike the game. See also my comment below Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this silly (and malformed) primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support move as PRIMARYTOPIC. If one were to actually look at the disambig page Hearthstone as it currently stands: 1) the first entry is a dictionary definition, not an article, and is thus ineligible to be PRIMARYTOPIC; 2) Hearthstone Castle, Hearthstone Historic House Museum and Hicklin Hearthstone are not referred to as just Hearthstone, unlike the game, and 3) a quick Google search makes it obvious Hearthstone is the primary topic anyway. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 09:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose request as stated, Support move to Hearthstone (video game). Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:NATURALDIS. It is a Warcraft video game, so why the hassle of moving it to "...(video game)"? I'm not convinced that Hearthstone is the WP:PTOPIC either. Also, that the title is dropped by its developers or publishers does not necessarily mean Wikipedia should follow suit. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  _@Soetermans: Hearthstone is naturally ambiguous, which is why it's a disambiguation page. As for "NATURALDIS", see my comment above--WP:RS, and not just the developer (and publisher) consistently refer to it without the subtitle. The subtitle should subsequently be removed in this case. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'Support: Why the fuck is this still an issue? The game lost the subtitle, hence just move on. This is literally the only place still clinging to it. Dragon Age Inquisition was once called Dragon Age III. By your logic, that needs to be changed back. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Calm down, will you? This is a move discussion, no reason to get so agitated. Inquisition was released as Inquisition, Hearthstone was changed later on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, now I see where I've seen your comments before: Talk: Persona 4 Arena. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyedit - MAJOR

@Frmorrison: wow, you've completely changed the whole article here, with your MAJOR copyedit - [1]. I hope you know what you're doing!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The game's title changed (see the game's opening) so the article needs to change as well. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Length

This article is getting too long (100k is when an article should be considered for splitting).

The Expansion section may be a good section or the gameplay section.

If the expansion section is one to be split, the main article can use a table like this to summarize what is there.

Title	Release Date	Release Type
Curse of Naxxramas (Naxx)	July 22, 2014	Adventure
Goblins vs. Gnomes (GvG)	December 8, 2014	Expansion

Any comments or concerns? --Frmorrison (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally, for long VG articles, the development section is usually the first to be broken out, since while they are encyclopedic important info, it's also of generally less value to a general reader (who probably is coming here asking when the next expansion is coming). That would cut about 1/2 the info into a separate article. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Genuine question (which I'm sure I'll get a kicking for). Should we not instead be thinking about maybe reducing the size of the article? How many other VG articles have a 4000+ word section on gameplay? From [WP:VGG]: "Gameplay: going over the significant parts of how the game works." Bar card effects themselves, I'm struggling to think of any gameplay element that isn't mentioned. Scribolt (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It really does depend on the nature of the game, but if discussion of the gameplay has received significant coverage in secondary sources, then a larger section is completely appropriate per UNDUE. Hearthstone certainly has this, particularly with all the changes that the game has gone through plus its popularity. (Contrast: MTG has its own page about the game's rules). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If the gameplay itself has clear and significant direct coverage, I think this also lends itself towards my comment below, as it shows notability for the Gameplay as a distinct topic. Gameplay of Hearthstone. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we move the gameplay over, I would also include the details of the Expansions and Adventures too (though obviously still summarizing them) and the card set info. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with reducing or splitting Gameplay, similar to World of Warcraft and Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Gameplay is the bulk of the article's content. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, MTG gameplay page is an interesting example, because there are no references there aren't on the company's own website. Is that OK? Does the existence of secondary source coverage allow exhaustive description of gameplay rules even if the article isn't sourced to the secondary sources? Contrast with Texas hold 'em which refers to a variety of sources. Anyway, I'd agree with keeping the gameplay and expansions together, because the discussion is usually centred on changes to the gameplay, created by the expansions. I'd still be in favour of trimming it down during the move, like I said, it mentions nearly everything. Scribolt (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be bold, but just in case, are there any objections to moving the bulk of the content from Gameplay , and from the Expansions (under Release) section into a separate article? In that article, I would just refactor the card table's location to put it just in front of the specific Expansions explanation. In the main article, Gameplay would be reduced down to 1-2 paragraphs at most, and the Expansion section down to a para to describe the typical 3-a-year and Standard/Wild aspects involved. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and split it like you mentioned into Gameplay of Hearthstone. I am not going to do anytime soon. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done the split - please note there are presently broken references, but I know there is a bot that will come through in <24 hr to fix those (I've laid out the appropriate history links to help it). --MASEM (t) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A bot fixed the orphan references within an hour. I moved the card set table and list of expansions back to the main article because it seems like a popular section and there is still room in the main article. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe the table of cards and expansions, duplicating one in the Gameplay article, but the details of the expansions are purely gameplay, and if gameplay was going to be separated out, those needed to be as well. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the expansion related info should be moved to the gameplay article. Not only is the expansion section gameplay related, but as it stands, this article now starts discussing some of the detailed changes to gameplay introduced by the expansions without even presenting the basic mechanics. Scribolt (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Support moving the Card Sets section to the new article. However, I believe a new subsection (of Gameplay) for Card Sets should be kept here, with a much briefer overview of the number of expansions and when they were released. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This article may have too much gameplay information in light of being split but it must mention something about expansions since it is a notable topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Expansions/adventures are mentioned in the Gameplay section to show that is how they exist (as well as a necessary component of the Standard/Wild aspect which is discussed beyond gameplay), but once you take out the specific details of gameplay, the specific contents of the Expansions/adventures also become less relevant on this matter. I do think we want to make sure that readers coming to find the info on expansions can quickly figure out where to look, but it shouldn't be left on this page w/o gameplay as well. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is still a bit lengthy. I started with cutting some information about the promotions from the release section, as I don't think listing every exact way for getting each individual reward in each promotion is necessary.

The development section also seems uncomfortably long. I suggest moving some information from ongoing support to card sets or gameplay, or at least cutting that down. I'll also consider removing the beta changes section, or at least its parts that are already covered in release section. BlueBanana (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The length, with the gameplay and expansion details separated out, is perfectly fine. We want VG articles to focus on the how and why, rather than the gameplay itself, so a lengthy dev section is good. --Masem (t) 14:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hearthstone (video 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://web.archive.org/web/20140411035444/http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/12427543256 to http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/12427543256

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) 23:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

---

• Hearthstone (video game) → Hearthstone
• Hearthstone → Hearthstone (disambiguation)

– Unnecessary disambiguation as all the other topics listed on the dab page at Hearthstone are only partial name matches, and are relatively minor placenames, making this primary topic. Netoholic @ 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The standard definition of "hearthstone" as a stone from a hearth is too common and has persistence over a recent video game. --Masem (t) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• If we had an article about that, I'd totally agree. As it is, its a vocabulary word (WP:DICDEF), and Special:WhatLinksHere/Hearthstone showed no links to the dab using that meaning. Such a vocabulary word could be handled in the hatnote of this article. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would point to the previous move request which occurred after the game dropped its subtitle, that the move to the non-paren version was opposed due to the real-world topics --Masem (t) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• And I think that we have the benefit of more time passing which demonstrates that for primary topic purposes, this game topic is on solid ground for the foreseeable future. We can always reevaluate it again if things change. No page title is permanent. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Mostly per nomination rationale. Yes, it leans a bit toward recentism, but the other contenders are quite weak in my opinion and the game is very prevalent in media. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. This is only a game. Can't be the encyclopaedic topic for a real world item. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, Boggle and Scrabble are games which are primary over WP:DICDEF terms which have no associated article. "hearthstone" by itself would never even stand on its own as an article, since we already have Hearth. I also object to the characterization of games as not "real world items" - they are real topics, real entertainment, and real hobbies. Everyone plays games. Few people have fireplaces. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• The question of whether the game is an encyclopedic topic is settled: we have an article on it. Disagree? Then file an AfD. But, assuming it stays, the only remaining issue is its title, not whether it's encyclopedic. There's no "is it encylopedic enough to be at the base name?" criterion. Making up your own rules is not helpful. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both Boggle and Scrabble have decades of history that put those games in the forefront for a primary topic. Hearthstone but around 5 years, so would be far too recent to consider it equivalent. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As Masem says, plus "a boggle" and "a scrabble" aren't a thing, "a hearthstone" is. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I think the page views and a quick look around Google confirm the idea that the video game is primary over other topics. And the dictionary term is not particularly encyclopedic in its own right, outside the more general hearth concept. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what a hearthstone is... attempts to find pictures of them on Google images failed due to the overwhelming inclusion of images from the game.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTADICT. We don't have an article about hearthstones because that's a dictionary topic, not an encyclopedia topic. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support Per cited policies by Born2cycle. Weak due to the recentism. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Thank you to Born2Cycle for laying it out: There's no "is it encylopedic enough to be at the base name?" criterion. It's ok for a primary topic to be a silly youtube video, or a pop song, or a celebrity dog site, if it fits our other criteria.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Born2cycle. Shadow007 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is very much the primary topic. Personally, I don't think quoting recentism would be a reason to oppose this move as it's not like it's been six months of being popular. It's been one of the most popular digital card games since its release (user voting, PCGamesN). Hell, PCGamer wrote an article about good card games praised HS for "single-handedly blowing open the digital card game market on PC", saying no other CCG "will likely ever see the same level of success". There are five years of notability behind this game, and as shown by the change in opinions between December 2016's RM and now's, it's probably best to move it. Additionally, we don't actually have an article on hearth stones, only hearth. The other pages listed are partial matches. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and because Hearthstone the game is going to be around for a long time as shown by over five years of history. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hall of Fame and the Year of the Raven

With Year of the Raven being released next week, three more cards are going to be rotating to wild from the classic set. Are we going to add this to the HoF set under the Year of the Mammoth or are we going to add a new table entry under Raven just for these three? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like HoF at the top, outside of the year flow, and make sure in prose it is clear that cards have been added to it periodically. --Masem (t) 05:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Something like this under "Reward"?

Collectible cards breakdown

Set name (abbreviation)	Release type	Release date	Removal date from Standard	Total	Common	Rare	Epic	Legendary
Hall of Fame (HoF)	Core	—	Periodically	13	3	2	3	5

Notes

References

Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, since we do have more detail in prose what Hall of Fame represents. --Masem (t) 14:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Listing the Hall of Fame under Reward as shown here is a great edit to make on or after April 12. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do. On Thursday I'll make the change to the table. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the table. It's a few hours early but that shouldn't be too much of an issue as everything is sourced to show that there are technically 13 cards in HoF. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Note on the card table

Given that the card table should be both on the Gameplay and this page, I have moved that table there, using transclusion to bring it into this article. --Masem (t) 19:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Board and table games??

I am not clear why Hearthstone is in WikiProject Board and table games. It is a digital only game, even if it does simulate a board game. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearthstone (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)