Talk:House of cards

What this article should be

Three possibilities:

• An article on the idiom "house of cards". This is disrecommended because Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide.
• An article on the actual practice of building houses of cards. No one has volunteered for this.
• A redirect to House of Cards.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're the expert. I'm new here. But it seems to me that if thumbs up gets a place on the site (even on part of another page), then house of cards should too. I was actually thinking it would be cool to find a picture we could legally use of a house of cards and putting it on, but you're right that in the 28 minutes this article has been up, no one with the expertise to write about card-houses has volunteered. I dunno. It's not a big deal to me either way. Dave 04:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Parkingtigers 07:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Hello there. I've just cleaned up this article a fair bit. My first attempt at cleaning up a full article so be kind. Tidied up the English and made the tone a bit more formal. I don't know if it now can be untagged for clean-up, but being new at this it wasn't a decision that I wanted to make. If someone could have a look and see if it is now suitable in form I'd appreciate it. If I've got it right, I'd like to move on to tidying up more articles so I'll keep an eye on this one for some feedback in case I grasped the wrong end of the stick. Cheers.

I would do something if you like.

I was the holder of the record for highest card castle in around 1978 (11 feet).

I've not done it for quite a while though. I do have some photographs though.

This is really sad!

My guess is James Warnock. Wow I don't quite got the patients to build anything that big, I just take a rubber band, and or card and begin to destroy it after about 6 stories. That would be intresting to have pictures of all the world record holders and their first towers, but it'd probably be hard to get all the images cleared by Wikipedia standards. (Floppydog66 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

WHY TWO WIKI-ARTICLES OF THE SAME TITLE???

Currently so far, there are two Wikipedia articles with the same title that headlined "HOUSE OF CARDS"!!! What is the meaning of this? How will the worldwide readers and knowledge searchers will able to find it straight-away the particular one-and-only articles that they want? Besides, how will they know that which is which on "pastime" or on "television show"? Can somebody or anybody immediately help to resolve these two articles? Whether or not both of these two needs to be redirected to another blank article for disambiguation or otherwise before another new article again with the same title comes up? In this world that we are living, surely there is no such thing (under the creation of the Almighty God) as two cloned or double-double of its own kind. Because everything was created according to its own kind in itself! However, for these two articles it is like the two of any different human beings living in separate worlds or of worlds apart can have 100% exactly the same full name!!! How pathetic! -onWheeZierPLot Tuesday, 27th June, 2006ad.

Articles with close to identical names are very common, e.g. we both have a U.S. state and a country named "Georgia". Try familiarizing yourself with wikipedia policies. You've added way too many wikilinks, second: you created incorrect disambiguation links in the beginning of the page, and much of this article might be relevant for an article about Berg, but this seems like the wrong place for much of your material. We don't use text like "Click on this link ... from the ImageShack website ...." in the middle of an article. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines, that'll mean less work for everybody. -Valentinian ^(talk) 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well...well...well...! What have we here! Dear Valentinian, I've done reading both of your replies from you and I've understand what you're trying to say about how and what should be done while initiating on the new article. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the way you explain it towards me I feel that you're somewhat going a bit too overboard like you're intending to be hard on me or grudgingly admonishing it against me!!! Are you? (Excuse or forgive me for saying that but I'm really just being dead honest!) From the overall of the two replies, apparently as it seems I've found out that you've been slightly misunderstood of what I'm trying to say or comment on here as well! How could you be so into it to yourself like that??? [You're almost acted just like Abraham's wife Sarah who took matters into her own hands when it comes to handling her own problems (as it's written in God's word)!] Couldn't you just be polite and gentle enough for me to give such a piece of advice like that? "Ssshhhiiiiissshhh!!!!!" O, bother! What a damning remark!!!

I've already know that it's good for you to speak it up so that you could compensate or resolve this matter back together again the way it is originally (for the sake of Wikipedia). But and however, as I've mentioned already that you somehow don't or unable to give the impression to get, allow, or even comprehend the whole, wide and clear picture of my objective of writing (I mean, typing) my own discussion into this discussion page!!! In addition, wouldn't it be much better for me to feel relieved if you'd rather or only just go and correct it immediately if you feel or sense that some things or stuffs are off in that article's content instead of just coming (or treading grimly with heavy steps) into this discussion board page and yacking it out sternly against me??? (Again I ask emphatically) HOW COULD YOU?? How can you give such an unfavourable (which I think it is) remark like that?? (Particularly when you're not sure about what is the person's main intention that prompted him or her to write it down!) Despite of whatever the matter it is, thank you for that reminder-lah! OK?

Now let me clarify, correct, or point out some unwanted misapprehensions of what you've stated or said in your replies of your discussion: Firstly, you've asserted that it's quite common and normal to have articles with close to identical names. However, I beg to differ! What do you mean by "it's quite common" or "normal"? Are you an advocate of biological cloning?? A sense that such originations, human manufactures, or human experimentations will definitely violate God's will or the natural scheme of things. Are you the supporter of piracy and plagiarism? This will only and eventually led to copyright infringement. Another example, suppose there are two coins of 100% identical in every aspect in which one of them is a fake coin (e.g. the contents: not made out of copper but other unknown non-copper metals), how will all the people in general know, distinguish, or realise that which is the genuine one or which is the phoney one? Do all of them really take the time to examine thoroughly both of the coins (despite that they're completely identical)? Our worldwide readers will be like those all the people in general. Do we want all of them to be cheated, tricked, or deceived by not showing them the difference in contents but by letting them to be misled by the same-titled articles? Being close to identical might also result in great corruption cases such as mistaken identity (which is a crime) and it will only make the matters even more badly! Don't you understand all of this consequences? You don't look as if to take all these issues very seriously (rather than just to simply affirm it straightaway as "Oh, it's just common!" or "Oh, it's just normal!" upon yourself!)!!! "Ssshhhiiiiissshhh!!!!!"

Secondly, indeed or for sure we do both have an American state and a country named "Georgia", however both of this two are surely often seen, heard, and understood by many people and readers in general as well. Thus there are absolutely no problems in differentiating with those two. Yet, why do you cite this example out? From my opinion, that example you've given it's solely and still unanalogous together with the two articles of the same title! The reason is this:

GEORGIA: One is a country and the other is a state.
HOUSE OF CARDS: One is an article and the other is also an article!

Right now can you able to see the evident comparison? "GEORGIA" can both be differentiated whilst "HOUSE OF CARDS" is still the same both in terms of what category or type it is! Don't you get it?

Thirdly, what is wrong with having too many wikilinks? I thought this is supposed to be a Wiki (in which as far as the accessibility of knowledge is concerned)! I was just trying to make that article as complete and wholesome as possible! Is there anything wrong with that as well? What are the grave consequences that will affect that "House of cards" article after I've added them? Do I have to add another "See also" section for them (referring to the readers worldwide) in order to avoid or prevent the overloading sufficiency or the over-abundance of wikilinks within that article's content? Today as we see, definitely not many people from around the world are English literates, thus doing this (that is adding considerable amount of wikilinks) would in such manner could benefit them in acquiring understandable meaning of certain languages or words from other Wiki's sub-sites such as Wiktionary. Aren't we want to have more and more readers and visitors to come into this online encyclopedia website so that it could be qualified or "promoted" to a higher position? You never explain it to me from any of your replies rationally on why is it NOT alright to do so!!!

Fourthly, what do you mean or intent when you stated that I've created incorrect disambiguation links from the beginning of the page?? I just don't get the hang of it absolutely of what you're trying to signify! How can you say it's incorrect? Where is the inaccuracy location of those disambiguation links?? When I checked again of what and where the error of that link is, it looks to me as if there is nothing wrong at all and I found no incorrectness! Unless you show it to me, how could you be so wrong, careless, and mistaken when you say that I've created those disambiguation links incorrectly in which later of what I've found out in fact there is none??? I just don't get the idea of what you're trying to elucidate here! Didn't you read through carefully from my discussion section above of what I was trying to say? I just mentioned or queried the phrase "Whether or not..." (this is used to indicate or to express or to introduce two or more alternative possibilities, NOT really meaning it!)! Why are you so not attentive to what I've stated up there from my first discussion message? Just like I've mentioned previously from the third paragraph of this composition, if they (that is, the global readers) wouldn't able to get that so-called "disambiguation link" located or if it's not there, how will the readers can locate it for themselves of what they really want?? Do you want them to get misinform?? Again letting them to be left away cheated, tricked, or deceived mercilessly??? CAN YOU MAKE MYSELF CLEAR???!!

Fifthly and finally, I've no other choice but to admit or confess that I was really unsure of how to paste pictures, photos, or images into any Wikipedia's articles (even until right now)! For this reason, I'll have to make an exception for this counsel you've given me on not posing the pictures into the column. That is why you could see the text being put up by me in the wrong place! Plus, that is also why I'll always let, accept or grant other know-how editors like you to help correcting it out of this itsy-bitsy unwanted text! Thus, pardon me for this error that I've created!

After all I've said and done, I stress that we as encyclopedic editors should be dutifully responsible for the sake of all the readers (plus the other editors as well) on what we're preparing them for! And NOT cajoling them to play hide-and-seek with us (especially of the articles with the same titles of hidden content differences)!!! As a whole of all this editing stuff, all I ever did is just to be nice about editing although I was just merely in the initial stages! (Needless to say, we as human beings surely do a lot of mistakes sometimes-lah!) Whenever I first step into this intellectual realm, I always believe into myself that in order to make it a better or best online encyclopedia, one of the chief principles on editing it is that it should be as enriching as with added adequate, considerable plus satisfactory knowledge asap (aka as soon as possible) and to make it a properly edited piece and it's alright to edit anything they want with what they know it's incomplete.

As for myself, I'm just or still a beginner or an amateur embarking on a journey of becoming a Wikipedian-editor's profession that still needs a trainer or any master to feed on or depend upon like the apprentice. It's certainly a horror hell of a lot of policies and guidelines, rules and regulations, terms and conditions, blah blah blah.....etc. with related links here and there to comply with this Wiki, moments after I've registered as a member-cum-editor of Wikipedia! Didn't you know that as for me it takes a damn lot of time to read and familiarize the whole thing whereas I've to deal with other better things to do with life "outside the box"?? Didn't you go over and have a quick view of my Wikipedia user page first before taking any steps for consideration? I've just started this wiki-stuff a few weeks ago because I thought it would be a great pleasure to have a first-taste experience on how is it like being the editor of one of the biggest web-based-cum-free online encyclopedia. I've always been known and used to have a great passion for world knowledge then when I was very young as recognized by my best friends and my family. I just want all the editors of this big Internet encyclopedia to help each other positively as well as mutually and NOT merely by criticizing or admonishing the newcoming editors down as they're just trying to do their wiki-job the very best they've ever could, just like me from that same batch! I was really stunned to find out some experience-but-strict-plus-"rude" editors almost like you telling anybody off who doesn't know what it means to edit properly! "Sigh"! How terrible!!!

Please remember that there was once an old saying that goes or says:

Although we are different from each other,
We can make a difference if we work together with one another.

Here's another taken from a Chinese proverb:

Deal with the faults of others as gently as with your own.

Again this is also another saying of wisdom by Scudder N. Parker:

People have a way of becoming what you encourage them to be
--- not what you nag them to be.

Moreover, couldn't you just be patient enough to allow me to spare some more time to get over all those Wikipedia policies like what you've said recently back from one of your desperate replies? Besides, "Patience" is also listed as one of the nine important fruits of the Holy Spirit (as it's written in God's word)! Remember?? So, BE PATIENT!

Alright, I guess that sums up all! Oh, and by the way if I'm not wrong in my calculations, you're unmistakably the third Wiki-editor I've met who replies it to me so far ever since I've started this whole Wikipedia stuff! Thank you! -onWheeZierPLot Thursday, 29th June, 2006ad.

Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer

I would like to write the article on the actual practice of building card houses for a pastime. Vashna 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotional tone

This article, and the Bryan Berg article, are heavily self promotional. they both need to be rewritten to be less tilted towards this person, regardless of his status in the field. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I de-promoted it. 2005 (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and suggested pictures

I tried to arrange the pictures in a informational way and removed those that didn't seem to be showing anything new in feature and design. I think the current pictures represent the main classic and architectural styles of building. I don't think it needs any others at the moment, but there might be a better way of showing some of these features. There are also card stacking that seems to be impossible such as this or the oil derricks that are made from a single column and extend far out past were the base was. I don't know if we should have any other image showing that type of thing or not. But that would probably lead to other pictures and a gallery and there doesn't seem to be enough references to include a gallery. I've tried to find older books besides Berg's that mention how to build card towers, house of cards, card castles. But I haven't found any, they'd probably be in hobby and games sections in the library but since the term is so often used it is hard to find find one that actually analyze the building of them. I've tried searching libraries and the Library of Congress' catalogue but had no luck. Maybe someone else will have better luck at it. (Floppydog66 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC))