Talk:Universal Fighting System

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: dailyesports A complete beginner’s guide to UFS

I'm afraid that images on Wikipedia aren't my strong suit. The Cassandra card is fine but a card that features the watermark might help the Set rotation paragraph, does anyone know if that can be arranged? Dunjohn (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Download a image from the Two Headed Dragon Card catalog and reupload it here. (retched (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

its been a year since that kid mentioned the need of a new card, but has anyone done a thing about it yet? 10:15, 19 May 2009

Added the Tekken 6 license, with references. Nlandcena (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what somebody is trying t osay with this. There are tons of other promos, thought about adding Genjuro to SNK's promo list, but it seems the promo's are just "chaarcter" cards that never appeared in the series previously. Seems kind of useless, perhaps reinforcing the fact that those are the characters FIRST appearance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.166.247 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to undo the indiscriminate wiping that occurred a few weeks ago, and try to clean up the truly trivial info / promotional-sounding things more surgically. The original justification "we are a catalog for a company that rips off others' material?" is nonsense, as this is an officially licensed product. Given the evident absence of UFS-related knowledge on the deleter's part, I want to try and address concerns without degrading the usefulness of the article.

The card set listing, overall, is very useful information. As a game that's been produced by multiple companies over a very long time, there's a lot of old product floating out there that isn't formally acknowledged on anything Jasco-related (and would likely be hard-to-find info at best via FFG or Sabertooth if it still exists). I'd consider it likely that many visitors would come here trying to figure out just what it is that they saw or bought, so a list of sets, and which ones are currently relevant, can be quite helpful. The character listings and some of the other columns are less so though, so I'll remove those.

Some small parts of the rarity information (the dots etc) aren't important, but a description of the rarity levels, pack distribution and foiling seems very par for the course, basic information one would expect to find about any collectible card game. Similarly, a basic overview of the organized play structure is pertinent to someone trying to find information about a CCG. Many games do not have formal organized play, and the presence or absence of such is a defining indicator of a game's nature and current status.

The champions listing is definitely excessive at this point. It maybe felt reasonable ten years ago but it's pretty out of hand now. Cetonis (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cetonis, that wiping was not "indiscriminate"--it was very discriminate. Your argument about "helpful information" isn't very strong: we include content if it is relevant and verified, not because it is "helpful" for some fan of card games. And what you re-added is just catalog information. So, NO. If you want to improve this article and make it actually helpful, find secondary sources to verify the information in the article. That is how an encyclopedia works. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies It's indiscriminate because it also just wholesale un-does a bunch of edits not related to the set listing or anything you're citing as a problem. In particular, the information about the UniVersus rebrand is a very important fact related to the endpoint of the history of the game. The official website has also changed, with the old one being dead, so I don't understand why it's wrong to update that link. The rest of the changes are just minor cleanup and simplifying text, but all the same there's no reason to axe them.

• And once again, you just completely un-did those and other changes, instead of simply removing the set listing if that's the part you find offensive. I had removed a line that came off as promoting the game, but your undo put that back in, which seems opposite to your stated intent.

• Sarcastically, please also remove the set listings from the Yu-Gi-Oh card game article, the Force of Will article, remove the Organized Play information from the Magic: The Gathering article, and similar on the Raw Deal page, the Weiß Schwarz article... Basically every collectible and living card game article on Wikipedia has such things. Are they all wrong? If it's a matter of verification, of course I'm unfamiliar with what would pass for that, though again it seems plenty of similar articles have these sorts of information without references.
  • Towards Drmies: bringing back the points from Cetonis. The edits made by Cetonis and others are in-line with others that have been made for similar trading card games (even inactive/retired ones). Universus/Universal Fighting System is an officially licensed trading card game that has been in production for several years as outlined in other articles from icv2.com and other tabletop gaming publications. There is nothing made about it. I'm trying to figure out why the Universal Fighting System article was removed wholesale? retched (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't "removed"--what was removed was a part of it: product information without any secondary sourcing, and a couple of spam links. That stuff was Wikia material, for fans, without proper sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait: there isn't a single secondary source for the entire article. If you want to improve this article, add secondary sourcing for the material that is there. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright but that's going to include the table of releases that I can source and some that I can't source (the original releases were just sporadic). There's very little I can do outside of maybe Wayback Machine references and the like which should suffice as it has sufficient for other gaming pages too here on Wikipedia (never mind Wikia). I'll admit that the names of the World Champions is a bit "almanc-y" and should be left off, sure. But at the minimum, set releases, game play information, publisher changes can be sourced from direct press releases from the publications mentioned and the Wayback. retched (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some reception. Anything you can find? @Guinness323, @BOZ _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely an improvement. :) BOZ (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]