ONLY place proposals here if the card text has already been approved below, and has a quote.
All article cards bearing no "special text ability" must be redone in accordance with the redesign consensus. This includes current proposals with illustrations and finalized cards as well.
What do you suggest? I was trying to convey the idea of the internet turning off without making it look too much like Unexpected Turnout. Maybe something closer to this, except with disconnected computers? EWikistTalk17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm....nah....forget that idea. If it wasn't a political figure, we could probably work with it at least. After browsing the Commons for some time, I determined that we don't have any photos (surprisingly) of a LAN cable. I think I'll snap a photo once my batteries charge, and I'll upload it. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well-- I would fix it, except that the SVG version hasn't been made available to me. The word "VChimpanzee" is aligned incorrectly; it ought to be right-aligned with the quote's rightmost boundary rather than with its rightmost text, if that makes any sense. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The SVGs are what we're using to allow multiple people to work on an image, but when showing it off, make sure you are sharing the PNG. So upload both versions. Looks good. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's like saving a raster as a .PSD or .XCF for your own editing and then exporting as a .PNG or .JPG for internet use. We edit in .SVG but show off in .PNG. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened to me for a period of time yesterday. I think the page said something about the servers getting too many requests, but I'm not completely sure. EWikistTalk13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I can upload things without a problem now. It was only for a few minutes a couple days ago that it didn't seem to be working. EWikistTalk16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text is a little large...try working from the template if you haven't already: [1]. Also-- I'm glad you bolded "tennis"...I've been forgetting to bold the article subject! EWikist, so have you! Have you got time to bold some subjects on cards, EWikist? Also, someone pointed out earlier we need to be careful with dropping celebrity names on cards, as with an earlier proposal for a Michael Jackson card. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just copying the article, bolding the pagename is WP standard. As for the celeb name, it was just the corresponding caption to the best image in the article. If you know a better one, link to it. Oh, and I grew the text because you said not to stretch it. If you want, I can see if I can upload it as an SVG on any other site. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I tried loading your SVG's in Inkscape instead of Firefox and they look pretty good and workable. You can continue using the SVG format. I've posted a guide at the TCG wiki so that those editing the illustrations are all on the same page, so I'd suggest you check it out just to make sure you're following the same protocols: WPTCG:Designing cards]. It's a step-by-step guide to make sure we're all doing it the same way. I'm finding it even helps myself remember certain aspects if I follow it in sequence. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. The SVG's over 10 MB. Wikia won't permit uploads over 10 MB (which is why you couldn't upload it). You might try reducing the resolution of the image in it. Also, the article text should just be a short summary of the first bit, rather than word-for-word. Other than that, it looks great. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure how many people need to approve the card before it is considered "approved", but I like it! The picture goes very well with the text. EWikistTalk14:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a week passes and no one rejects, I'd call it approved. We like to move quickly here...it keeps us alive. If we move too slowly, we kind of fall apart. That's what happened to the first 40 members of this project...they didn't keep the project in motion very often. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it did sort of screech to a halt, didn't it? I'm glad you and I got this thing going again, however (I feel so special!). As for the card, I have the same comment as for Mr. Mozart. Perhaps, for the caption, we could just have a caption for the picture, and then put the text that currently is being put as a caption between the caption and link? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, too. Ummmmmm...I'd say yes, but that might confuse someone playing the game. When we draw a diagram of the card, the diagram will point to the area below the gray box and say "special text ability" and the text inside the box will have the label "quote or summary of the subject". Rather than moving the text, perhaps we should leave some blank space and include a fancy watermark or something in that blank space, such as the WPTCG logo. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could, instead, say that the caption is a "quote or image caption" and underneath is "special text or a card description" depending on if it is an article or other. An article would be the second from each statement, and other cards would be the first. Does that seem smart? I am determined to get something between the box and link, as you can tell. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm determined not to remove the quote/summary from the box. It disrupts the format of the card. So-- we've got two things to maintain-- structure and aesthetics. We need to put something there, though. Maybe one of our other contributors has a better idea we both like. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current layout for article cards, with a summary as the caption and nothing between that and the link.
Putting an image caption under the image, and then have an article summary and any special text under that, above the link, where text goes on other cards.
Having some sort of picture in the empty space, like in the picture above.
I think I like #1 the best. An image caption is not a bad idea, but it seems like there would be a lot of undivided text underneath that and it might look a bit cluttered. I think in most cases the article summary should explain the image well enough. EWikistTalk16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I brought up is that every other card in the entire deck is going to have a caption (quote) and then text underneath. If we just don't have the underneath, these will be different than the rest of the deck, which would drive me berserk, and I would no doubt gripe about it for all of eternity. :) To further mess this up, some articles have special text, so some articles would be freaks, and some would fit in, which would drive me even more berserk. I don't need my idea (#2) to be the exact one used, but I would like sometihng under the caption. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but to be honest, I guess I don't really feel the same way about the whole "different card" thing. The fact that some cards just don't have text in a certain area doesn't really bother me. Ah, well. We'll have to come to some decision at some point. This is just my opinion EWikistTalk01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article summary. It is longer since there is no special ability. This helps take up more space on the card, although stretching the image works, too.
Yeah, seeing it visually definitely pushes me to stick with my comment before: The image caption is a good idea, but it would be kinda' confusing with the article summary and special instructions squished together undivided. I still like the current design the best. EWikistTalk21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we use Idea #2 for most cases, but then the "Article with Ability" one for articles with abilities? That is the most that I will settle for without prolonged kicking and screaming. By the way, I like the new signature, my dear Bob. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But wait... Doesn't that go against what you originally said about some cards being different? Then we're having some article summaries within the box, and some outside with a caption in the box, right? EWikistTalk00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Your comments are more about the visual-spacial aspect than the actual content of those areas. Seeing as both of these things are important, we'll have to find some balance between them. EWikistTalk20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I want them all to look uniform (with exceptions, of course, for special cards, but not for an entire class). It looks like, by what you just said, that you are now at the exact same point as Bob with what you are thinking. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see we're making progress, then. :) I guess I'll keep making the cards with the current format, and if we revise it, it won't be that big of a deal to go back and change them a bit. EWikistTalk01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray, I have pulled EWikist down with me! Ah, I've got the perfect solution, Hi! Check this out:
Article
Title
This is a summary of the article's topic.
In honor of Hi878:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
By the way, thanks for the sig compliment! I got the motivation from seeing all y'all's special sigs on this project... My sig looks better if you get the special Wikipedia release of the Linux Libertine O font: [2] - BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN(talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think saying that it has no special text is rather stupid, actually. Think about it. You draw a card, and it says that. What would you think (other than "There's obviously some weirdo that needed there to be text there, so they put this stupid thing there to appease him.") when you saw that? I do like the first idea, however. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. :) By the way, could you explain, as clearly (and perhaps persuasively?) as you can, why you like Idea #1 so much? I am curious, as I have explained my reasoning, but I can't recall any from you. Also, what am I going to do about you all being stacked against me? Have you corrupted Nicky yet? :P One other thing... I fixed your extremely large string of line breaks above, right below the row of four proposals. You will feel immensely foolish when you realize what I did. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think now would be an appropriate time to break out the ol' Facepalm . You are indeed correct that I feel quite foolish. But wait... Are we using the version with the "This card has no special ability" text, or are we figuring out a different phrase? EWikistTalk16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't decided on a version. :) #4 is the "In honor of Hi878:" one. IF you look up a little ways, to my initial reactions to the serious proposal, you will see that I don't really like saying "This card has no special text." Bob, I still would love an explanation, so hurry up on that! :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EWikist, try using {{-}} next time instead of lots of <br /> tags.
Hi, it's for the simple sake of localization. That means that when I pick up a card, I couldn't care less about the quote on it or the article summary, all I want to know is what's pertinent to the gameplay. When I look at the card, general knowledge of the anatomy of a card tells me that the text inside the box is of no interest and the text below the box is crucial for gameplay. Therefore, I'll read any text that's below the box. If there's no text below the box, that saves me the mental strain of realizing that what I'm reading is useless. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord... Well, at least this discussion is happening somewhere... :P By the way, all of you people here, I'm not coming back yet, I just couldn't pass up commenting on this. However, I shall be coming back within a week or two, and if I don't, I encourage you all to bombard me with e-mails reminding me to. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The words aren't mine but I have happy memories of learning SVG by adding the diagrams. Please feel free to leave this one out: all I did was to propose a rule set that wasn't even collectable. Certes (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooo...radio stuff? Cool suggestion! And proposing an entire ruleset was a major contribution, even if it wasn't ultimately adopted...it takes time to actually think out a cohesive set of rules, so (at least in my eyes) you've helped significantly. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I realize the suggestion below may have been a joke, but I think it has a nice ring... Plus, it leaves room for a larger picture. EWikistTalk21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I was kidding about the text. We're borderlining there with that trademark. A summary of the planet would be appropriate, since the other articles include a summary. I don't see any other issues with it. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, fine. If you insist . I wouldn't think it would be much of a copyright issue since it's only an indistinct two-word phrase and we aren't referring to the book Mostly Harmless, but I've changed the card nonetheless. EWikistTalk20:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see Mostly Harmless put back on the card. I think using a two-word phrase from a book could be justified as fair use. Voyager640 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say since there's a book named it, a line from a separate book and an econometrics company, I think it's eligible for illegal use probably okay. But since the Hitchhiker's Guide was originally broadcast on BBC radio and is now published by Pan Books, either one would be the ones to contact, dare we do such a thing. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make the text "Humorous references to Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are inappropriate content for this article.", or possibly a quote from one of its AfDs? 143.92.1.33 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome photo. The text seems unbalanced. Does "complexity" not fit on the previous line? If not, is there an alternate summary you can provide that is less off-centered? Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to upload the PNG and link to that-- not everyone here knows what to do with the SVG version. Looks good, actually, even if that was the layout Hi liked and I fought against...and I think you've just convinced me, too! I don't like the hyphen, though. Hyphens on short lines look sloppy (that's just me, though-- see if anyone else agrees).
By the way, my dear Bob, the approved Lojban card was a tribute card, so obviously, the approved card design doesn't work. I should probably say this somewhere else, but I don't really care. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do not support this card as it is. I think that the font is far too large for the text; I would much prefer something the size of the text used in article proposals by our other two card-designers. Otherwise, though, I love it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good, except for the title being too long. Could we use an ellipses, or just let it get cut off at the edge of the card, instead of having it take up two lines with an über-tiny font?? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Failure on Wikia's part, once again, not mine. The image cache isn't refreshed on their servers, force-feeding us the old versions. We'll simply have to wait for their servers to catch up. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like, but the text is a bit vague. Do you mean that a sacrificial edit must be made immediately? Or, if it stays in play, what is the incentive to play the sacrificial edit to take it out of play? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. It sort of functions like a vandalism that doesn't prevent an edit; a vandal that doesn't vandalize; a bad policy with no effect. It's just a bad card cluttering up one of the five bad card slots. That's the only incentive to remove it. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five bad card slots? Where did that come from? I've never heard anything about that. By the way, if it doesn't do anything, wouldn't it be good to have it filling a bad card slot (pretending that said slots have been proposed and accepted)? Wouldn't it make it so that you wouldn't have as many bad card slots open for cards that will actually do something? This seems, so far, like a helpful card with an explanation utilizing something never proposed or discussed, unless I am mistaken. By the way, my original support was based on me accidentally thinking of this as a vandalism card, not a whatever-this-is card. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is discord, meaning it's not applied to an article, it's just put out there...sort of like a Wikipedia card except it doesn't represent any sort of policy. Remember, we created the class for all those strange things that weren't vandals or vandalism or Wikipedia-space or articles? Yeah, this is one of those. And the "slots" I'm speaking of are mental. All in your head. No physical slots to speak of, unless you want to get to work molding some plastic trays for us. Remember that five (or whatever the number was) bad cards in play at the beginning of a turn ends the game...this card just contributes to that deadly number. That's all it does. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT illustrate any card in this category until a quote has been agreed upon (unless it's a "good article"-class card)! Wording may be altered as the game and card design continue to take shape.
Text: Limit one per deck. All players may opt to sacrifice a card from their hand in favor of a card of their own choice from their draw pile, then have those draw piles shuffled.
Quote: (well, not really a quote, but...) PROMO DECENNIAL CARD: Celebrating ten years of Wikipedia (2001-2011)
Image suggestions
Anyone like a particular logo from tenwiki:Design? Personally, I think we ought to grab File:10mark_k.svg and stick that onto the puzzle piece in our logo that has the W, in place of it. That'll require a bit of SVG editing, but if I hit a dull spot someday (even if it's over the summer), I can do that. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could either put that on our existing puzzle piece, or you could try and make the puzzle piece look more like the ones that they have made already. Obviously, we wouldn't just copy theirs onto the card, but maybe you could try and make a version of the black puzzle piece that looks similar to the current one? Bleh. I sound idiotic. Hopefully, you get what I mean. In the meantime, I need to get some sleep; I am having to retype almost everything I say, because I keep hitting the wrong keys. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)07:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more appropriate to include one of the thousands of photos from the various festivities. Perhaps one of a cake, or of people having fun...preferences? Here's the collection to browse through...I didn't even get through a decent amount of photos before realizing input from others would be valuable during the selection of an image. I have no idea how rare these will be...it all depends on how many people have the coupon (it was distributed via the Wiki-X mailing list prior to the festivities, so event leaders included it at their own discretion, and attendees held onto it at their own discretion, and more than likely, very few of these people will redeem the coupon, so I'm guessing this card will be exceedingly rare!). Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I handed them out at the meetup I went to, but I doubt anyone kept them. And I have it sitting on my desktop (I should probably back that up, it would be sad if I couldn't get a card I helped to design). I don't know if the card's rarity will mean anything for long, I could get rich selling free WikiTen cards on Amazon :) As for the pictures, I guess real pictures are fine, too, although I thought the globe I made was pretty impressive. Skimming through those bagillions of pictures, I came across a few I liked (A • B • C • D [I've obviously got a sweet tooth]). —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) 06:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fault-- I should have been clearer! I was thinking along the lines of lightening the dark photo. Perhaps the midtones can be brought out or something; it looks dark and will be darker in ink than it will be on the screen. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proposal that's rather time-sensitive. In 9 days, Wikipedians around the world will celebrate ten years of Wikipedia. Let's contribute to that celebration by offering those hosting the party a decennial promotion card. Since the cards obviously haven't been arranged to be printed yet, of course, we'd issue a sort of coupon. This coupon could be something really simple, like "In celebration of 10 years of Wikipedia, you are entitled to a free promotional decennial card once the Wikipedia Trading Card Game is finished being developed and released."
Yes! With two supports, I'm going to send this on up to the approved section, due to its time-sensitive nature. Bob, will you handle letting the people who would get a coupon know about this? Seems fitting, as you are our still charismatic leader (for now...). I think you should design this one as well, due to your cards being of very god quality (don't worry; I said god on purpose now, as I no doubt will forever). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could set up a link at WP:TCG with the text "click here to redeem a coupon", and behind that link, we have an address they can mail it to. Then we can mail them their promo card. By the way, I just had a look at our store where we're planning on selling this. Without a direct link from WP:TCG to the product, no one will ever accidentally stumble upon even the store, much less the product. Just something for us to keep in mind once we released this thing. Which, by the way, will happen. I'm guessing we're only two years away, unless we come across major problems between now and then. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do I need to print one of these coupons, or can I just have one of these cards when this finishes? I think that anyone that is deserving of a tribute card shouldn't need to print a coupon. What do you think? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If, for instance, a long-standing editor makes a lot of tyops, it's perfectly reasonable to check their contrib logs for similar tyops and fixing them." -Radiant!
Quote suggestions
"A typographical error is a mistake made in ... teh manual type-setting of printed material." -Typographical error article
Or something along that line? Also, for future reference, are ellipses necessary in the quotes? I know it is generally done, but seems like it would disrupt the fluency a bit in short quotes. EWikistTalk22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mind linking to the edit? I'm not finding it. And, as best I can tell, it would have been vandalism, as the original version of that sentence was typo-free. Is quoting vandalism advisable? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 23:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was an intentional typo... I thought it would be kinda' funny, having a "teh" mistake on the card, but I understand if we can't do it because its not a direct quote. That being said, even though it doesn't apply to this, I would say that there isn't anything wrong with quoting vandalism; it would be similar to naming "bad article" cards after WP:DAFT, right? EWikistTalk16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of it that way-- we decided against cards like "Willy on Wheels" because it would glorify a real life vandal. The reason we're using actual deleted titles for bad articles is to prevent the introduction of bad titles inspired by the game-- if the page gets recreated, someone's likely still watching that title. So now I'm not really sure what to say about this...I do like the idea of an actual typo in reference to typos, but I'm not sure I like one taken straight from an article...perhaps there's a good quote out there (and I'd recommend, since we'll be pointing out someone's flaw, that we get approval from them). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend doing an advanced search and unchecking "article". Most good quotes will be found on talk pages. But yes, it takes a lot of effort (and creative searching) to find a good one. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If, for instance, a long-standing editor makes a lot of tyops, it's perfectly reasonable to check their contrib logs for similar tyops and fixing them." -Radiant!
I like teh idea, but I think "Teh" might be a more appropriate name-- "tyop" doesn't come across to me as an obvious typo-- rather, it reminds me of "sysop" and I had to wonder if that was some access level I was unaware of. "Teh" is an easily recognizable typo, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), and teh most common one, too.
Also...remember a vandalism doesn't need to have a special text on it-- it's an edit that can be reverted (and a typo is something simple enough that a simple quick reversion or edit will fix, so I don't think it makes sense to bump it down a whole class. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I agree with that now. I propose that we never have text for vandalism cards (which would mean that you should take "Text" out of the preload... Actually, never mind; that's where someone could write something clever). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDragons may seem scary or intimidating, but they most often are very helpful in shaking things up and making major improvements, and most are extremely friendly (just don't try to pet one).
Is the dragon upset about my not liking that quote? How about this, then:
WikiDragons may seem scary or intimidating, but they most often are very helpful in shaking things up and making major improvements, and most are extremely friendly (just don't try to pet one).
"Unlike the real platypus, the WikiPlatypus insists on having its name pluralized as WikiPlatypi, and not 'WikiPlatypuses'. This is because things are different on the wiki."
"Unlike the real platypus, the WikiPlatypus insists on having its name pluralized as WikiPlatypi, and not 'WikiPlatypuses'. This is because things are different on the wiki."
AH, you beat me to it, Hi! Oh...Mars has already been featured at least once so it already qualifies without being a tribute card. So I'll remove that as a "tribute card" idea...you get to pick one that's never been featured for your tribute card, Nicky. Also-- support the nomination as a must-have card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't particularly want it to be my tribute card, but I'm fine with it anyways. I would've preferred something I'm interested in, like SpongeBob SquarePants or Google (preferably the former.) Mars was just supposed to be an article... it asked for more astronomy-related articles. Sorry for the commotion, folks. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have no idea how long I spent looking for that message you linked to. Payback time! (Sorry for commenting irrelevantly in this section, just needed to demonstrate to Hi how awkward that was!) Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support this one. . If we have any problems at all, it'll be getting this game made and marketed with the approval of Wikimedia, not putting Wikipedia on one more card hahahaha. As far as I can tell, Jimbo doen't have an issue with it, but then again, apparently some guy name Zack is the person to talk to about it. I don't know who Zack is...do you guys? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I feel comfortable with that. All of the best articles are featured (duh,) that and/or copyright infringement!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.155.178 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010
Text: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.
Text: Congratulations, you are now a Real Wiki Editor and can now proceed to Requests for Adminship - where named accounts can call you all sorts of names. —LessHeard vanU
I was planning on using the icons that appear on each user access level. This user access level still needs an icon, though. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps a green checkmark to represent the confirmation? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bad article can have many different forms...this particular bad article is not an encyclopedic article, but rather, a poem a Wikipedian has decided to share by creating a page with nothing on it except the poem. It's a less common sort of vandalism, but I've seen it done before. It's always heart-wrenching to kill it because you know they put extra work into it. If you have a look at the linked policy, WP:POETRYISALWAYSWRONG, it explains why poetry should not be put into the main space. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye here. Ideally, no article is a poem, and no project is, either. The idea here is this: Imagine that some n00b has decided to exercise his ability to create a new article that consists solely of the poem he wrote about whatever, and has saved it into the main space where articles go. This is the sort of page that meets WP:CFD, which is why it would be considered bad. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally misinterpreted four words that were in your original repsonse, which screwed up everything that I have said since then. :) You are correct, my good sir, and I support this nomination. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you love it? That quote is so boring! I think that we should have one that is actually interesting, funny, unknown, whatever... Not this, however!
Text: While in play, this troll causes one bad card to be turned over for every article in play relating to a famous person biographical article in play.
I suppose it would be, "While in play, this troll causes one bad card to be turned over for every article in play relating to a politician or politics in general.." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text:Rodriguez Alfonzo Jalapeno Terre Peeetre le Gorgo CXXXVIII, the troll who always signs his posts, even in article namespace, causing server overload, has signed his posts. You can not play instant cards this turn.
We could have something really long that runs right off the card. For example:
Discord
Freakesshly long sig
[[|180px]]
Rodriguez Alfonzo Jalapeno Terre Peeetre le Gorgo CXXXVIII, the troll who always signs his posts, even in article namespace, causing server overload, likes to edit a lot, and therefore always causes problems for his fellow Wikipedians (although this isn't usually a big deal for the rest of the world.) He was born in Tallahassee on the twelfth of July, 1984, and quickly moved to Long Island when his mother's job was transferred.
Maybe, we could make it all just a long name, with titles, like so: "His highnessKing Rodriguez Alfonzo Jalapeno Terre Peeetre le Gorgo CXXXVIII, the troll who always signs his posts, even in article namespace, causing server overload at the most inconvenient times, Lord of Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobiaville, Baron Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygonia,Supreme Tyrant of the West Watchmendarkknightreturnskillingjokesandmanroadtoperditionsupermanendoftimecivilwarclonesagasnowbirdsdontflyallstarbatmanandrobintheboywondercrisisoninfiniteearthsinfinitecrisisidentitycrisisourworldsatwarsflashpointfinalcrisissoylentgreenwaspeoplesnapekillsdumbledorewinstonsmithdiesattheendsin City just signed a post. Good luck." Except replacing that last one with something equally long, except without all the copyright violations...--CanvasHat23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or just a bunch of middle names. Do you remember that '97 Cinderella movie? It had a song called "The Prince is Giving a Ball" and the announcer guy was reading from official documents, which listed the prince's full name, "His royal highness Christopher Rupert Vwindemier Vlandamier Carl Alexander Francois Reginald Lancelot Herman Gregory James, son of her majesty Queen Constantina Charlotte Hermantrude Guenivere Mazie Margareet Ann, son of his majesty King Maximillian Godfee Ladeslous Leapolt Sydney Frederick John". —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek06:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to make it fit then. Trust me on this one. I'll come up with something creative if this card makes it to the illustration candidates. Instant cards are pretty rare in most games, though...this might make a better Wikipedia class card. That way instants would be banned from the game until someone can correct it. After all, changing someone else's sig doesn't happen instantaneously...you have to get them to do it. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Turn over one bad card if there is a video-game-related article in play (unless you really want one of your articles to be vandalized, then it can apply to that, instead.)
If we are to ignore the section head, why did you make it so long? Also, I think that having three video-game related articles be vandalized is a bit much, because there probably won't ever be that many video-game articles in play. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean it like that, I just mean for this card. Changing the title doesn't seem like that big a deal. We should just ask CanvasHat to switch the name, and that will take care of the problem. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of having one card with a gigantic title, so gigantic that we had to change the format for it. The only way I would support that is if it were freakishly-rare, or something like that, so that it becomes a "special" card in multiple ways, not just the format-changing one. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two just figure out exactly what you want this proposal to be, propose it, and then I'll commnet, because I can't really make sense of this conversation at the moment. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, 170 cards? Really? I thought it was 100 not counting the access levels and user. I don't have time to do the math at the moment, but maybe we ought to think about reducing the size to 100 or so. Woot for the proposal, though. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, they say things like "each user has 100 cards, if they have 150 they... for two hundred divide whatever by six..." Look, you'll see that kind of thing in the card math section. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Yes, "standard" cards with variations are good. The troll cards play the variation game as well, as you've probably noticed. I like it, though I feel the "+1" is redundant. So, question time: Should we imply that all vandalisms that don't say otherwise incur a single vandalism counter? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'll allow for a larger image on some cards and a better wording on others...it'd be a shame to have to include something that's implied and then lose space over it. Not really a problem on this card, but it would be on others. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not meaning to ruin the joke more, but is mr. Waldo Doe copyrighted
Nope, but Waldo is copyrighted and trademarked. I'm not pointing to the legality issues, though...I'm wondering if this is actually relevant to everyday life on Wikipedia. Looking through a page history for a man named Waldo isn't exactly something people ... do.... is it? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; also sounds more like an edit than a user. The user cards are special cards in that you choose one to represent you as a player for the duration of the game, and it shows your specialty. Although, if you wanted to make a user card out of this, you could do it by changing the text to say something like "You may revert one vandalism at the beginning of each turn." I'm fine with either, or both, actually. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Good idea. Ummm... How about having everyone lose admin "powers" (if they have them) until this is removed? Any "powers" above and below admins would be unaffected. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking of how to illustrate some of these and i saw this... I was all for this when i realized that the illustration may be...questionable any ideas...
Yeah, in Sunday school you learn about Virgin Mary before you learn what "virgin" actually means. It does, I admit, have to do with "...questionable" things, but this one will be easy enough to do with out "questions." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first user-class proposal. As such, let me remind everyone what a user-class card is. During the setup phase, two decks are built. A good article is pulled from the good deck and put into play, and the decks are then shuffled. Six user access levels are set aside, and "Anonymous IP" is put into play. A user card is selected from each player's collection to represent him during the course of the game. This user card contains some special text ability that gives the player some specialty or other advantage for the entire game. When the starter sets are released, I think it would be appropriate to include two or three user cards per set of decks (that would come to a total of 110 cards per set; to include two sets in a double set (commonly known as a starter set) would imply 220 cards) to give a player some freedom in how he plays the game. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my wording wasn't clear-- what you've just proposed as an alternative sounds more powerful to me. What I meant to say was this-- any time a chemistry-related article is brought into play, it starts at "start" class instead of "stub" class, and three cJ would be awarded rather than one cJ (although we don't have to award the 2 cJ for the automatic improvement). Since each player is allowed only one User-class card per game, that keeps the effect toned down. Also-- note that per what is rule 1.7.1, an article cannot receive an edit if it has vandalism on it. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea, but not your explanation of User cards. I was under the impression that user rights cards are not set aside; you have to have enough CJs and have found the card. Obviously, a discussion is in order, so I'll throw one together on the rules page. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the things I use against my left-wing friends. Not to say, however, that I am right-wing; I would like to think that I am independant of all of that crap, as I point out the flaws in everyone. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is this a user card and not an instant? It seems like a user card should give a bonus in the course of other actions played, rather than just have an instant effect. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I see now, I misunderstood the text. Perhaps it would be more clear if it said "Every time you play a chemistry article, you may advance it one extra rank." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Immediately improve all chemistry-related articles in play (i.e. remove vandalism or upgrade class). All subsequent new chemistry articles start at start class instead of stub class.
We need more synergies in this game. I think we should have a number of "WikiProject" cards with similar effects to this one on different topics. I selected chemistry for this one as I've proposed a number of chemical element cards above; space would be another good one since we seem to have a glut of those article cards already. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation; but a Wikipedia-class card (which remains active in the playing area once played until removed from play by a vandal) has a rule that changes the game somehow. Are you suggesting each article is improved once per round by this card? That sounds like a quick game-win to me. I'd recommend we change "all" to perhaps "up to two" in order to keep the game more balanced. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is really a combination of an instant and a wikipedia card. The instant effect is that all chemistry articles lose one vandalism—but this happens only once so I feel this effect isn't overpowering. The permanent change is that new chemistry articles get an automatic improvement. I've also just proposed another card below (Article Alert Bot) which interacts with this and other WikiProject cards to have a similar, limited effect as you mentioned. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would all CJs coming as a result of extra article improvements (including the bit for new articles) go to the person who played the card? If so, I think that either this should be an EXTREMELY rare card, or it should only be like that for the instant half; for the WP-class half, it should be divided up somehow, perhaps going in a clockwise direction every turn. The CJ gain would be too easily accessible and to large, otherwise. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power card. It needs some chopping up into multiple cards. I'd keep it Wikipedia-class and get rid of the "instant" ability and chop "all" into one or two. Hi's got a very valid point-- you could unstoppably win in about 7 turns after playing this card if you've got enough chem articles in play. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the effect on cJ's. I suppose no player would get the credit for them, since the edits are ostensibly being made by other non-player members of the WikiProjects. I agree that giving the entire cJ bonus for the "instant" effect to one player would be excessive. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that... It just seems wrong... I am of the opinion that CJs and getting them from article improvement shouldn't be messed with (and there is a good chance that this is because I proposed the whole thing... :P). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! I will allow this, but don't even try to convince me that messing with someone's actual CJ count is a good idea! I still oppose any card with that in mind!</rant> ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact that this step is for finding quotes, I tink you're an amazing artist but crayons/markers might make it seem like we put more than 10 seconds of work into the card while still maintaining the randomness we're trying to get across. Something about MS paint drawings just irks me for some reason. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek06:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we need a quote too, don't we. Well, since we have no real guideline for a quote besides, ya know, being WP-related, I found a randomish WP-related quote (on WikiQuote) that made me smirk: "Individuals who have tried to edit the pages about Barack Obama — to reflect the incontrovertible fact that he is not God, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan — report that their contributions have vanished within minutes of posting them." - L. Neil Smith, "Announcifications From Your Publicatorialist: Wikipedia, Missouri, and Ceres", 15 March 2009 —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want a quote related to the card, how about "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. See schizophasia. If the meaning cannot be identified, it would be impossible to accurately copy-edit the text." by 86.142.67.57 (revision 388566230 of WP:Patent nonsense)? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A real work by the man known for patenting nonsense-- Pablo Picasso!
Just stopping by...hi everyone! Y'all live! I agree...some nicer illustration is in order here for sure. I bet...there's something in the Commons that is patented nonsense...how about this? Of course, we'd need to crop the litter out of it. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to finish the proposal for someone else! I refuse to do such a (usually) simple task when the proposer can easily do it themselves! The fact that it is part of the proposal makes it seem idiotic that someone other than the proposer should have to do it! AGH!!! Okay, I'm done ranting now... ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a pretty good computer, a fairly good Macbook. It just can't handle pages that are quite this size, but I figured out how to get around that (but it took longer...). I once was in an edit conflict (with myself). I fixed it from there, saved it, and waited for twenty minutes. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Seems fine. However, maybe we want to not allow this to be used for higher-level articles? It seems that it would be sort of odd to add an infobox to make a GA an FA, since it would obviously need one to become a GA in the first place. Perhaps we should not allow it for improvements to B-class or higher? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, change the link to WP:SOCK. My suggestion: "You may look very suspicious if you own a sock puppet." by Optim from the second revision of WP:SOCK. I also think there will be some pretty creepy pictures we could use on this card. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go. Like I said, partial attribution (the first half), although the edit summary implies that it might have been copied from another part of the article... WAAAAH!!!!! *floods internet in tears* —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quote looks fine to me. By the way, the CJ issue isn't actually an issue; you don't get them for removing vandalism. However, I don't like that we are calling this an article at all; the page linked to is a WP-space page. Last time I checked, those aren't articles, good or bad. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many people (myself included) probably won't get that at first glance; I think that we want something a bit easier to understand without putting a ton of thought to it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bot Approvals Group approves or denies requests for approval for bots." The only difference is the removal of the word "which," for grammatical reasons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an alternative (but still not funny) quote could be, "The Bot Approvals Group supervises and approves all bot-related activity." from WP:BOTPOL. I just can't find anything good. But this is Wikipedia, we can make a quote if we really need to. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what BAG is, you obviously haven't paid much attention to anything... But I forget. I spend tons of time just starting with some random thing that I find, and seeing what stories they lead to; I come to BAG often in these wanderings. I have amended it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)03:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the opening bit doesn't fit, it doesn't hurt to shorten it some. I had to do that on Abbott and the frogfish, I believe. And....Hi...what sort of "something"? If there's no special text, there's no special text. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I totally oppose. The picture was taken six years after the war, it doesn't show anything, and the flags look ugly. :) I would recommend only using a picture, and picking from either this or this. I don't care which; I liek them both. Also, I have a suggestion for the text, because I don't like what is there (did I write that? Ack!). It should say "The Anglo-Zanzibar War, fought between the British and the Sultanate of Zanzibar, was the shortest war in history, lasting around forty minutes." I'm going to be picky with this card, by the way, because I love reading about this war, and... And I want it to be perfect. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to sound so harsh; I just... Well, mainly, it was the flags that made me freak out; the image choice wasn't that bad. The other two are just better at depicting it, as the one you chose wasn't a picture taken during/right after the war. The text thing wasn't you, as I am the one who wrote it, so it really wasn't as bad as I made it sound. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I mostly put the flags there because I needed to fill in some space and the picture wasn't really identifiable as relating to the war. I did come across the picture you recommended (the current one) and I have no idea why I didn't use it originally. EWikistTalk15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my proposal. Oddly enough, in the few passing glances I had of this card proposal, I honestly thought that it said problems, not proteins. Not kidding. EWikistTalk01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a completely legitimate, and un-disgusting, article about a class of biological proteins. It only sounds disgusting from the title! Yeah, I saw this in the FA list and just had to suggest it. As an image we'd probably use something like this, which apprears on the top of the article: File:Mup1_PDB_1i04.pngAntony–22 (talk/contribs) 02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, except for the obvious unreolved discussion. Yes, I have been insanely busy this week. Bob has been busy as well, and apparently, when we are gone, the entire project screeches to a halt. :) Within a few days, I'll go through and archive/move proposals to the appropriate places; I think that this week will be less busy. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy too; I was quite surprised when I was finally able to look in a day or two ago, thinking I'd be way behind on everything, and saw the last edit was mine. EWikistTalk20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Inkscape can do some pretty neat things with gradients...can we get something cool going on with a black background and white foreground, and some spooky gradients? Also... "undead or living person" could be changed to "living or undead" for a slightly ironic punch. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely support as a pop cultural element. Again, please refrain from abusing the special ability proposition line. Give it a semi-protect in reflection of the article's current protection status. Seems to be a good guideline to follow. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like this one, although now-a-days vampiracy (?) seems to be more about shirtless teens on the silver screen than wretched beasts spreading an infective darnation epidemic. Anyway, I support. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to an NPR coverage on vampires over the summer-- the vampire enthusiast they interviewed confirmed that vampiracy reverted to its symbolism of sex even before Dracula was invented. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or GAs. :) I would like to just go through and decline all not-current-FA/GAs-or-tribute-cards, but I think that everyone would disapprove, so I'll just leave it at this little mini-rant. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re WF/t: "Yet another transition metal" will not even appear on this card. I see no reason to retract the already-approved proposal, especially provided you've pointed out it's a rather interesting one. I say we put Iridium on hold for now until we have finished enough cards for a starter set, as we've got plenty of element cards at this point for the first edition starter set. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Place all new suggestions in this section. Keep in mind that incomplete suggestions will require more work before they can be approved, though the members of this project are willing to help complete a suggestion if needed. Make sure your proposal stays inline with the Ruleset!
I know the edit page says do not propose anymore cards. but, we need more cards since this is less than 100 cards, and seems these approval process stopped, you may create more if you comment on multiple approval processes. thank you!
Needed articles
We need a couple of featured articles related to:
famous politicians, particularly non-American (documented permission is required for living people)
video games (articles related to generic technologies or game types are probably safe)
politics
public policy
Additionally, regular contributors to this phase (we know who you are, and you do, too) are entitled to nominate one article of their choice, regardless of its quality. The only requirement is that it is in the main article space.
How about making it a Wikipedia (bad) or Discord card instead? What if it applies, say, only to one player's bots, or to all bots but only for a single round? Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, nice idea! So it would work something like this:
For each article your bots should improve, vandalize them instead.
I could always change it to drawing a card or two...wait, that's what WP:THANKYOU does. Perhaps we could alter it to give an additional edit to both people. VeryPunny00:32, 02 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion, although this is similar to my "Barnstar" suggestion: You may have the given WikiCookie in your area, but when you choose to "eat" (sacrifice) it, you can make one more edit or soen.wikipedia.org
Definitely not. I won't stand for idolatry of Jimbo. Instructing players to pray to anyone, in general, is a bad idea as a rule for a game, unless that game is a religion-specific one, like the Christian game Bibleopoly (I'd list non-Christian examples, too, but I don't know of any). Also, the Wikipedian's Prayer ought to be represented as a good policy, as it encourages editors to humble themselves and accept there are certain areas they aren't allowed to edit. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to whatever you want, it was just a rough idea.
You could lose an edit or edits per turn, as if time is spent praying, that's the time spent NOT EDITING! VeryPunny
That makes it seem as though we are saying that praying is bad. I think that having this as some sort of good policy would be fantastic, however; we need to make the description and picture small, so that we can fit the entire prayer on the card. I think that people would find it pretty darn funny. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can stay on a Wikibreak without the enforcer. :) I like the idea as well. We would need to make sure to say that they still get the same amounts for the rest of the time, however. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem useful/useless to pray to Jimbo. Does it waste your time? Nope, it just makes you return to your turn 15 seconds later.
Strongly decline. Drla8th!(talk)19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmm....can we find a shortcut that doesn't have a curse word in it? m:Don't be dense seems more appropriate in this case than the shortcut. Also-- this sounds like a power card. Eliminate all but one bad card per turn, and the game has become so easy it's hardly worth playing. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the card would be fine if we switched it to "The first bad Wikipedia card drawn in a turn has no effect." I also think that it should be an instant; having this permanently there seems rather stupid, regardless of which text is used. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "bad WP card", are you referring to Bad-Wikipedia-class? or just bad cards in general? Since Wikipedia cards should ideally be rare, it wouldn't make sense to assume multiple ones might be drawn in one turn. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Your first edit of each turn must be on a biography of living persons article, but this edit gets a bonus of one extra vandalism removed for free. This card expires after two rounds.
This card is actually inspired by one that's going on right now—there should be a notice about it at the top of your watchlist page. Actually, for the purposes of this game is should probably apply to all biographies rather than just BLP's, to expand its scope. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having it be only for BLPs would create the need to mark an article as a BLP, which would take up more space. I don't like the "one extra vandalism removed" bit, because there could, at this point, be a large number of article cards played, and if that is the case, there is a good chance of vandalism not being present, which would make that irrelevant, and which would make the card only an annoyance. I would suggest either replacing that with something else, making the card an instant and having it only apply to one article, or making it "permanent" (barring removal by a bad card), but having it be optional to edit a biography article instead of required. I prefer the third one, myself. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cactus Games has handled the problem of categories rather well by publishing a comprehensive list of cards and what categories each of them fall into. There is a myriad of categories used in that game, from "humans" to "Assyrian kings" -- and no one would ever guess which kings were Assyrian without consulting the list. I was thinking we could probably maintain a CLICK>>> list similar to that <<<CLICK. If we keep it updated as articles are approved and categories suggested, it should be fairly simple to maintain. Any discrepancies regarding whether an article fits into a category can then be "officially" agreed upon, thus removing doubt if there should ever be an official tournament. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So. This category list would obviously be in the rulebook, but what happens when we have a new series with new articles? Where would people get the new categories? Other than that, good idea. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For biographies it should be pretty obvious which articles count, even without a list. I'm a bit more concerned about things like chemistry and other WikiProject ideas we may come up with, since there could be some borderline cases that players may disagree about. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, it's Wikipedia. Folks can log in and check the updated list. Lol. And...obvious? Pop culture is the last subject I know anything about-- especially people. I'm a nature and computers guy. And let's be honest, did you know Robert Abbott was alive before coming to this page, Antony? I'd never even heard his name before. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet real money on the fact that nobody that has contributed to this project had heard of Mr. Abbott before I forced him upon you all. :) However, I am also willing to bet that a fair number of you have seen things that have resulted from his work (such as logic mazes). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should make it conditional: If your first edit on any turn is to a BLP, you may remove a single vandalism for free. And LOL-- read the section header in wikimarkup, and it looks like BLP Strike. For the record, I created my first BLP :) completely out of coincidence! Bob the MoroN[5](talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Swap a vandalism counter for an edit counter on any article with only one vandalism counter. Remove vandalism from an article that has only been vandalized once, and then edit it constructively.
If he does mean class, Antony, people will just put a little stone or paperclip or god-knows-what on the article to mark how many instances of vandalism there are, and/or how many classes it has progressed through. However, I think we also decided on something like having five bot-edits constitute one rank, in addition to having each person-edit be a rank... Maybe we should revise this? Cards are only so big... ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's right. If I wasn't on my way out the door this very minute, I'd check the rules amendment proposals-- I think it's one of them that got approved quite recently. And I'd also say that once the five bot-counters accumulate it would be more than appropriate to replace the five bot counters with one edit counter-- historically, I've not been able to fit more than about seven counters on a card's picture, and not more than about 15 counters on a card's surface. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically," he says. :) Anyways, let me paint a picture in your mind. Let's imagine you have this beautiful article card that has gotten all of the way up to A-class. At that point, it has five counters. It also happens to have four bot edits. That's nine. Then, do to a massive bot attack, it has three (or even four!) vandalism counters. That would be 12-13 counters. Yes, you "historically" (I'm sorry, but I just love that you used that word. :P) have been able to fit a total of fifteen, but possibly cramming 12-13 onto a card, while it would fit, would still be rather annoying. Plus, not everyone would have counters the same size as your "historic" (okay, I'll stop now) ones, unless we are providing the counters, which had better not happen. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you put it like that...got a better idea for counters? They do take up less space than placing the actual cards on them...using a scorepad just doesn't have the trading card game feel to it.......Anyone care to design a game with cards that are 3x6 inches? I'm beginning to understand now why every TCG I've played removes all counters from cards at the beginning of your turn... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe bot edits can be worth more? We could also do some sort of maximum amount of vandalism on a card... Perhaps something bad can happen if it reaches a certain limit? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point...bot edits could be half-edits...that would mean there'd never be more than one bot counter on any article at once. As for "something bad happening, let's see a full proposal at the rules page, and I'll comment. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we actually using counters to mark the ranks it has gone through, or are we just laying the new rank card on top of it? I like the bot edit=half edit thing, making it sothat only one counter is ever there... ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have rank cards? As the rules currently stand, I believe we're using counters to track edits (equal to class), bot edits, and vandalism. This would imply at least three types (colors, perhaps) of counters with room for a fourth type, used in unique situations. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: For each WikiProject in play, remove up to three vandalisms from any articles in that WikiProject's scope. (Current player's choice as to which articles.)
A few things. First, instead of having it be players choice as to which articles, I think it should be the three with the most vandalism. Second, I think three per article might be a bit much, especially since it is a bot, which leads me to my next point: Bots stay in play. Does this happen every turn? If so, I think we should seriously reduce this card's power. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, this card is only powerful if there are both a couple of WikiProjects in play and the articles in play matches up with those wikiprojects. If there are few WikiProjects, or few articles, or the articles don't match up with the WikiProjects, then this card is pretty useless. That means that this card is actually very weak in the beginning of the game and only becomes powerful near the endgame, and only if the players have taken care to chose their WikiProject and article cards properly.
If you've ever played Race for the Galaxy, it's like one of those multiplier cards that gives you no points by itself, but gives you a lot of points if you've played other very specific cards. In order to get the maximum effect you need to adjust your stategy to assemble the right cards that match your multiplier card, and if you don't do this (or you got the multiplier card late in the game) then the card ends up as just dead weight. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound smart-allecky, but that looks like (from what I can tell) it's not a trading card game. The difference here is that in most cases, a player will have hand-picked from an array of cards he owns in order to find cards that complement one another. That's also the reason designing the bad deck cards is so challenging-- we have to keep in mind that the player is free to choose which bad cards, which projects-type Wikipedia cards, which articles, etc...and chances are, they'll complement one another. Sorry to rain on your idea like that.
Hm, so you're saying that there's an incentive for a player to just pack their deck with WikiProjects and articles on the same topic? Is there a way we can make a disincentive to doing this? Perhaps a card or rule that encourages having a diverse set of articles in your hand, or something bad can happen if your hand isn't diverse enough? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you said "2% Wikipedia-glass ceiling" at first... Wow... Anyways, I think that is idiotic. People should should be able to build their decks as they want, in my opinion, other than the outline we have already set down. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if the article card came out of your own deck. This is one way to force people to use synergies across people's decks instead of just stacking their own deck. There are probably better mechanisms by which to do this, though. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Place this card on top of an active WikiProject (current player's choice). The effects of that WikiProject card are negated until this card is removed by (some mechanism I haven't thought up yet) sacrificing three edit cards.
Good! I like it! In response to the bit you haven't thought up, I would suggest that we require three edit cards to be sacrificed (or is three too much? Two would do) to remove the card. Fantastic card idea, though! ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! Perhaps the way to reopen a closed WikiProject is one of two ways: 1) the WikiProject is played again (supposing there are two of the card in the deck) or 2) a special card is played that specifically is for reopening an abandoned project. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer Hi878's proposal. WikiProject cards will probably be pretty rare, since their effect can get pretty powerful as more articles are created, and needing another specific card to negate this one has the problem that that card would be useless if this one were not in play. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Would this be an edit, or an instant? I think we should have it be an instant, personally. That way, if someone else draws a bad policy, you can remove it immediately. Also, I think that the access should be Anonymous, because Anonymous users can still participate in consensus-reaching. This seems as though we are excluding them. Other than that, I love the card. Please, don't take my always-not-being-satisfied-with-the-original-proposal-almost-without-fail in a bad way; I'm picky. Ask the people at WP:MOTD. :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)07:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since consensus isn't really "instantaneously" reached, an instant isn't quite as optimal as it sounds. Anon makes sense, I'll change that bit. I'm the same way-- I'm pretty picky, too. In case you haven't noticed yet. I think a few people at Wikipedia have noticed...and at the SporeWiki, one of my haters made a hate-sculpture of me that looked like a wad of chewed-up gum and googly eyes with a hair coming out of the front. But it's simple-- there's rarely a proposal that's perfect the first time around. I just want to help make it better. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A real, big-deal initative of the Wikimedia Foundation to get professors to get students to improve Wikipedia articles in public policy as a class assignment. Not sure what the card-specific power should be yet. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like changing my stance on copyrighted and trademarked stuff going onto cards, so if we drop the sponsoring deal, I'm still planning on rejecting such cards unless all proper permissions can be gathered and archived somewhere-- the wptcg wiki would be a good repository for the permissions. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: You may choose to roll a die (d6) before your action phase. If the die comes up 3-6, you may play three good edits for each card drawn from your bad deck instead of one. If the die comes up 1-2, draw two cards from your bad deck and lose the rest of your action phase.
This is a tricky card. You have a 2/3 chance of doubling the number of good edits you can make, but a 1/3 chance of losing your turn. So using it decreases the average number of bad cards played over time, but it makes the gains uneven by introducing the risk that you'll lose your turn. The exact numbers will probably need to be tweaked in play-testing. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what you are saying here before I comment-- this card would modify (for the Wikiholic player only) the following rule:
Following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
to read as:
If you rolled a die before your action phase and you rolled a 3, 4, 5, or 6, then following every third edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
If you rolled a 1 or 2, turn over two bad cards and lose the rest of your action phase.
If you did not roll, then following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
I think so, but your wording is confusing. :) By the way... ANTONY! YOU IDIOT! WIKIPEDIHOLIC, NOT WIKIHOLIC! GAH!!! Fix it yourself, so that it is burned into your mind. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would defeat the purpose of the appeal. In an appeal, you request to be unblocked, and that appeal must be reviewed before you are unblocked. Not that any of us can speak from experience here. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA Actually when I listened to NPR interviewing him this weekend, it sounded to me like the idea to post it all over the place in an annoying fashion wasn't his idea. So now I am just angry with the folks at Wikipedia...or...I dunno. lol. I'm a folk at Wikipedia... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so bold as to say that yet... By the way, Nicky, I have something to say. HOW DARE YOU USE THE SPECIAL PUNCTUATION MARK THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN USED OTHER THAN BY ME! GAH!!! ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a bit more annoying to try to put one of the images of those especially weird puncuation marks onto a page than to just copy+paste an interrobang or irony point. I'm glad that the opportunity to use a pointe d'amor hasn't arisen, by the way ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)07:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no more 'Article' card can be placed (good or bad). You can remove this card by sacrificing 4 'edit' cards, or by other card's effect. If 'Artile' (bad) has been drawn, discard it immediately. how' bout this?ProDuct0339sayworkproj 04:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Text: Add a free edit for any purpose. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate any discord card.
comments
I think that the Trifecta thing needs figuring out before we use it on cards; nothing has been proposed about it. I don't get how the first bit of the instructions works. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have no rule that states two cards with the same title and different attributes may not exist. In fact, there's a proposed amendment right now that actually encourages such "duplicates". Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Turn one vandalism into a constructive edit. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate all discord card.
Text: If you draw a vandal, place a constructive edit on an article of your choice. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate all discord card.
This was really mostly Bob the Wikipedian's idea in a previous discussion. I like this card because it is useful only under certain circumstances—when the bad Wikipedia cards have much worse effects than the good ones. The removal requirement can be tweaked. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Canvas, please try to spell correctly, as it is becoming hard on my eyes and brain. I support this card, and will ignore the Trifecta thing brought up by Canvas until something about it is actually proposed. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense as a bad card. As a good card, I'd do something more like "At the beginning of each turn, decide whether you will collectively ignore or honor Wikipedia cards in play." Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I made it a good card is that the player can choose to play it if it is beneficial to do so, and can refrain from playing it if doing so would be a bad idea, as it would be in some cases. Further, the rule for removing the card allows it to be overruled quickly if the situation changes (e.g. if a lot more good Wikipedia cards are played).
Yes! However, how do we pick which article? I would say that we start with lowest quality, and move up the ladder. People can pick whichever they want among those with the same ranking. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I totally forgot about that! By the way, would you mind being the one to run the rules page? I would be happy to do it, but I would be a smidge happier not to. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bob, that proposal doesn't apply here. That is for vandalism, while this is for deletions. I would think that something different would happen for the two things. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that generally helps. :) You should try finding a card for my quote for auto-confirmed; I love it, but it obviously won't work there. I like this card. By the way, I think that we should have the source be "Anonymous User" in all cases, as "Anonymous IP" sounds too impersonal, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a different link would be good... I'll look around, although it would be great if everyone who reads this could, as well. I think that this will be a harder one than most to find a good link for. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: All Jimbo!s must spend 1 round shaving their beard. They may not play any edit cards during that time. If no users are Jimbo!s, this card will remain in play until one is drawn.
As long as shaving means that you can't play cards for a round, I love it! I am assuming that is what you meant, and will tweak the text a tiny bit as a result. I am glad you came up with a way to use this! ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I appreciate you associating that with this card, CanvasHat. Both my support of this card and sense of reality are now in question. Thank you. EWikistTalk20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My, it certainly takes all kinds. While I've got nothing against Wikipedia, I am a fan of Uncyclopedia myself and have written several articles there that have thus far evaded huffing. The Onion is cool, too, though I'm not convinced it is worthy of a WikiProject... BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN(talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just bragging/complaining, it's part of my nature. We'll probably end up having to start a task force instead. Anyway, this card is fine. PS: I like your new signature. It kind of reminds me f the wikipedia logo. If you want me to make an SVG image of the text in Linux Libertine font, which is what the logo uses, I'd be glad to. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What? What was I supposed to yell about? By the way, I wasn't on WikiBreak, I just... I don't know. Didn't log in. How dare I‽ But seriously, what are you waiting for? Did someone fix something before I was able to yell about it? Or am I missing something? Anyhoo. I like the card, but I don't think that the access level should be autoconfirmed, as anonymous users can get barnstars as well. And by the way, do you mean this turn, or this round? Also, the text doesn't seem to really connect with the title... Either a new title or new text (or splitting this into two proposals) would probably be a good thing. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no talk pages, there needs to be some abstract way to represent barnstars. Vandalism-less giddiness seems fine to me. But I agree about the access level. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord! I remember now! I went back and found that (tiny, insignificant) comment (that I am surprised you remembered) and suddenly remembered what I was thinking at that very moment. Gah! How dare I forget! I oppose this card. I am ashamed. I really do have a reason for not liking these; barnstars are getting a bit out of hand at this point, in my opinion. Many different types are given out, and it seems like they are given out for every little thing. I think ew should just stay away from them, because there is a good chance we could go too far as well, and I would rather just say no to them all. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever gotten one, and that was only because I asked for one at a tenWiki party—I don't think they're getting out of hand (or maybe I'm just really unpopular). —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your plan didn't work. :) I'm not totally against barnstars; I'm just against the point of insanity where they have gotten to. I could tell that yours was thought out, but if you look at the awards page history, you can see that I killed a large stack of barnstars that were hiding there. Nicky, you just have to be in the right places, and see the right things. I don't have many barnstars, but I watch other people give them to each other insanely, and it depresses me. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have two types I give out...well-deserved and nearly spontaneous. If I work on a project for a long time with someone, I want to call attention to the fact I've come to know them as more than a moniker and appreciate their hard work. The other type-- that's usually a spur-of-the-moment thing-- and I only give those to people I've never even heard of, and only if they've done something that really makes my day. Like this one time when this person who is really super-hard to get along with had his or her userpage adorned with some very nasty personal hate comments, and this random dude was timely about completely erasing all traces of the edit-- he even deleted the edit. I'd never seen anyone do something so nice for that user, and I couldn't let that go unmentioned. Of course, the guy who deleted the edit was like "huh? I did what?" BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN(talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then, yes, I am just really unpopular and unlucky. I'm mostly friendless both off- and on-line, everywhere except here and on the AWA. I'm really trying hard to make you sad, is it working? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name of card: WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard
Class: Discord
Text: All Jimbo!s must spend 1 round grooming their beards, without playing any edit cards during that time. If no users are Jimbo!s, this card will remain in play until one is drawn.
My dear sir, would it not be better to make this a bit more similar to the other one? I propose to change it to something along the lines of "All Jimbo!s lose a turn, due to the fact that they were [somehting or other]." ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Swirlex is Wikipedia's biggest barnstar fan (just look at his userpage); if you have a better quote, please share. Not sure if the cJ amount is too big or too small — perhaps it should be changed. ♠TomasBat23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like everything about it, including the quote, except for the text. If you take a look over at the Rules page, you'll see that there is a little proposal in progress attempting to make it so that CJs cannot be messed with other than through article building. As soon as new text is proposed that doesn't do that, I will be happy to support, however. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how barnstars can get out of hand in the game. Whether you like barnstars or not, it's an important aspect of Wikipedia, and it's use has become quite popular (about every user who has been on Wikipedia for a while has given or been given at least 1 barnstar!) I'm not saying we propose separate cards for every type of barnstar — just 1, generic "Barnstar" card with a little bonus. ♠TomasBat18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I just really don't want barnstars in the game; they have gotten to a point that I don't like on-wiki, and I don't think that we should have a card for them. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they're a classic! Barnstars have become characteristic of the Wikipedia community. To pretty much any person who has been an editor of Wikipedia for some time the term "barnstar" will ring a bell. Do you have any argument besides "I don't like it"? I still don't understand why we're using Centijimbos, a relatively obscure term (31 watchers), as a central aspect of the game (game XP, used to achieve higher access levels, printed on the corner of every card) and yet there is such a strong opposition to including 1, single generic "Barnstar card", when Barnstars are well known, popular, and used a lot on Wikipedia (236 watchers). "Wiki barnstars were introduced to Wikipedia in December 2003. Since then, the concept has become ingrained in the Wikipedia culture." (from WP:BARNSTAR). I think excluding barnstars from the game would be a very blatant omission. Please don't kill me for arguing :) ♠TomasBat02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centijimbos aren't quite as obscure as you think, my dear sir, although they aren't anywhere near as common as barnstars. The reason we are using something that is relatively obscure is that there wasn't anything else that we could use for a points system, unless we wanted to use Wikimoney, which is even more obscure. :) Barnstars are overly popular, in my opinion; they are blatantly overused, to the point where the serious ones are devalued. You can get a barnstar for doing anything, at this point; tons of people have guestbook barnstars, which are these fancy awards you get for putting your name on some random page that doesn't matter. Things like that have become too common, to the point where I don't even want to have a card at all, even though there are most certainly barnstars that are worth getting. They are overused, devalued, and... I'm going to shut up now. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I agree. I also agree with the messing with Cj. Sorry. But, I think barnstars are...one of the most important [things] on ... Wikipedia. But hey, I'm a noob, what do I know?
It might be a good idea to allow one extra edit for the receiver's next three (or some number) turns, due to the morale boost. VeryPunny 03:07, 18 April 2011
How about we limit it to one kind of barnstar, the original, in the game? Also, I think that we should use a different quote; that one is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I'll support if all of that happens, and if we DON'T MESS WITH CJS! New text, I beg of you! Regardless of my insanity about that, when actually editing, you don't get more CJs when someone give you a barnstar, but you could, potentially, get more from editing articles. Don't we want to stick with reality? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Incidentally, if you do happen to get a new message at the time you see one of the fake message bars, you end up being greeted by two message bars, the real one above the fake one." —Kyoko[7]
"Wouldn't have fallen for it if it wasn't for the real one that I had less than 2 mins previously, and to which I was about to reply." —GW_Simulations[9]
"I wondered why there were two message boxes!" —Defender 911[10]
They used to call it one of the most important unknown words (just behind the pointy thing on the tip of an umbrella and the groove between your nose and mouth). Now it's advertised, everybody knows what an aglet is now. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't steal my punctuation mark, damn you! I suppose I just don't like the grammar, to be honest. :) Is this card to be indefinite, until someone does something about it? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well, now you know. Actually, it's scary, but a lot of people might actually learn a little bit about Wikipedia from this game. Hopefully, though, they realize Wikipedia is in no way a trading card game, lol. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nicky. The only problem I have with that is that it's a userspace card, so the username will appear on the card. But it looks popular enough that we might be able to convince everyone it can be moved into the Wikipediaspace. What do you say? Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaw, I should have dedicated this card to you both. The worst thing I'm suffering from is consistent loss on Worth1000 contests. Ugh, again with the bragging-complaining, I really have to stop that! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been here long enough for two tribute cards!
I think that we can put this in the WP-space; I don't see any problem with that. It's nice to know you considered re-dedicating this to me, my dear Nicky. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA since 2004; Today's Featured Article on June 5, 2004. Perhaps more articles of this sort are unnecessary (a card for Mozart appears to have been approved), but if you want to include another composer, this one seems like a good one. (See WP:COMPOSERS#Featured Articles for possible alternatives; the fact that I'm submitting Shostakovich rather than another of these is mostly based on my interest in his music.) The current text is adapted from the current first sentence of the article. Card title could be abbreviated D. Shostakovich if necessary to make it fit.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we do end up needing to shorten his name, I think using just Shostakovich would work fine. I know who Shostakovich is, my fellow tubas know who he is, but if you say "D. Shostakovich," it has a somewhat confusing effect, as if there was some other Shostakovich. Bananaclasic (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone that cares will know who we are talknig about. :) By the way, Bob, your comment about this being the first music card is worthy of ridicule. I'm pretty darn sure Mozart jumped in quite a while before this one. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)17:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence of your statements above was effective in startling me into thinking I had said something completely stupid, but as I read the final sentence I was relieved. You actually think Mozart had anything at all to do with music, lol. Of all the claims in the world, Mozart having to do with music... Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Lol, what an interesting phrase! Never heard it before, but I got a good laugh out of it at least. Before I give my word of approval, I'd like to hear what others think about receiving the automatic cJ on each turn. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So all it does is advance an article one class for one turn, and then it returns back to the old class? What purpose could that possibly serve, beside wasting a turn? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed cad. The main difference between this and an edit is that you can play this card even after a bad card says no more edits, because instants can be played at any time.
Text: Put five counters on this card. On each player's turn, add one more. All counters must be removed from this card using sacrificial edits before this card may be converted to a good article stub.
Comments
I like it. At first t seems useless, and then you think about it. One piece of advice: could you clarify vandalism counters? It just kind of bugs me that there might be those dumb enough to think you mean raising it a class each turn. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a few less than five would be better. Or... We could have the number of counters starting out on it be equal to the number of people playing. What do you think? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Wrong Idea. Oh, and demolish means it can't be drawn from the discard pile.
"Remove from play" would be clearer. I've actually seen an instance before where a card had the special ability that required you to play "spin the bottle" with it and then rip it in half once played. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but it needs something... aha! Change it to "Choose a bad article name. This article cannot be brought into play after WP:SALT is played unless a player has reached or surpassed admin status." Because that's more like what would really happen, and the players have to know that adminship doesn't make everything perfect. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 8,031,810,176 possible combinations of seven random lowercase letters. The chances of choosing one that actually may be played is miniscule. Perhaps look through your disaster deck and choose one bad article. Put the article back in the deck and shuffle it. Whenever you or your opponent draws this card or any copy of this card, demolish it.--CanvasHat18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you have played the game a hundred times with said deck, as well. I like this idea, but so that people know we don't want them to play "spin the bottle", I think that we should say "remove from play". :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing it to "Look through your bad deck and select an article to salt, and shuffle the deck. When you draw this article, immediately remove it from play" Any problems?
"Pick one 'Article (Bad)' card from the deck, This article cannot be brought into play after WP:SALT is played unless a player has reached or surpassed admin status. Also, reshuffle the bad deck." Sounds good. Support!ProDuct0339sayworkproj 12:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Text from editnotice FOR THIS PAGE: "Every single card that you nominate NEEDS a link in the proposal. If you do not have one in the proposal, Hi878 will constantly harass you until you add one." ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone, it's true: I didn't come up with the original idea for CJs, I just came up with how we use them now, as surprising as that is from my insanity about them. :) The card looks fine, by the way. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989), the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975) and prior to that, an actor.
Text: Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
Haha, Obama? Nah...he'd say YES WE CAN, most likely. But you do bring up a valid point-- does anyone know what ugly legalities surround living people? I don't work with BLPs ever so I have no idea what's involved. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but do we really need so many presidents? We can probably be more creative in the area of politicians than just these. And what about the British, Australian an Indian politicians? Wikipedia is supposedly equal to all English-speakers. I don't want anyone to feel left out. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer WP:BLP, unless we email him... and Nicky does have a point. But then there is an awful lot of countries. Maybe just the ones with nukes. We can give them a complimentary Peace Dove
Alright then. I'm not sure, but I believe this is the right email address. I've been receiving email from Mr. Obama from that address regularly, so it would stand to reason the email address would work both ways (though whether anyone reads emails sent to it is another question). Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think that is worth trying. If you want to, go ahead, but don't expect much. :) It would be nice to have this card, but... Rather difficult to pull off, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize it's only good-class. But I say that this should be an exception on the grounds that we need a card to counter-balance Evolution and Hi (the enforcer of rules) has yet to return. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get me a coin. This may be a last resort, but it is not featured.Put on hold until Hi comes back. Really. It's a good article, and a well written enough for this, but it is highly controversial.
I hate to fit perfectly into everyone's expectations, but... It isn't/hasn't been featured... If we are going to just start allowing random exceptions, it will get very messy. The argument that we have articles on evolution and global warming, but not religion, is idiotic; find a religion-related FA. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I didn't know how to count. I really don't know what I would have done without that table. Are you volunteering to keep a scoreboard for every single proposal now? No? Then don't do that at all. There are religion FAs. We don't need to make an exception to the rule just because you are too lazy to find a proposal that works. I'm going to leave this project if this passes, unless someone can come up with an actual, valid reason in favor of it. Don't make stupid moves like that little scoreboard again. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a card raising the level would be ineffective if the article already has a gold lock. If we are going to propose this, we need cards that lower the protection level as well. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll need to wait with rarity until we have a chance to actually test the game out. That'll help indicate what needs to be rare and what needs to be common. However, once we've established it, it'll definitely be something we'll need to assign to further cards. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBreaks do decrease productivity, but this conveys the message that we are not a community that promotes rests, but a dictatorship that stresses productivity
Well, I thought that would be the best class for it... I listed it on the talk page as "Positive discord," but that would just be weird. I suppose a WikiBreak is usually bad for Wikipedia anyway, just not for the person doing it. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Seems odd that WikiBreaking would promote an article's quality. Perhaps upon return they should draw a three cards more than normal, or something else that's not related to the advancement of articles. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to know that I strike fear into your heart, Nicky. Anyhoo, I like the idea, but shouldn't we lower it to 1-2 cards drawn? Three seems a bit much. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think that we should make it one round, as opposed to one turn. It seems more meaningful, if they have to wait that long to do anytihng. Second, a person would theoretically only have one of each permission cards in their decks; this would make it rather hard to keep advancing, no? I think we should leave out that bit. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that! However, two questions: First, would you only go from 'crat to admin/admin to rollback(?), or would you go down two from 'crat? Also, does this effect you if you are Jimbo? If not, we should come up with a clever way to make that known. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Golly knows why. I thought I knew of a WikiBreak-related link about requesting that WP not open for you or something, but I'm not finding it. Any ideas for the link? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, provided we can come up with a royalty-free image, support. And apparently your idea of a WikiBreak and my idea of a WikiBreak are very different. My idea of a WikiBreak is not contributing significantly for a few days or more, merely keeping up with current discussions when possible. If I weren't WikiBreaking, I'd be doing a lot more right now. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. First, I think the text should read as follows: "Someone has added a "Rickroll" link to one article. Spend a round watching the video." I think it should be a round, and that we should be more creative with the wording. :) Second, Bob, I don't see how you can call that a WikiBreak. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that one, Bob. Anyhoo, I made the change to the text. However, I think that the card shouldn't be permanent; I think that it should expire after ~5 rounds. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting more thought into it than I did, dearest sir. :) Does 5 rounds seem like a good number? Also, I think we should reword "prevent any effects" so that it sounds a bit less weird (and specifies effects of the card). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too strong, my suggestion is to instead reduce the success rate (perhaps to ¼ or 1/6). What do you think of that? --23•3213:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should make a card catering to variants; the standard rules say that if a drawpile is depleted, the discard pile is shuffled and used, the game doesn't end. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what if nothing left and less than 10 articles are left because of other cards? will it cause a draw? ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Text: Every 3 turns, an imaginary article card is added that has all the properties of a regular article. Roll a standard die. 1:Article is Space. 2:Chemistry. 3:Math. et cetera.
Comments
Meh, an imaginary card would be hard to keep track of. Try "This card will remain in play for 3 rounds. Each round, look through the good deck and pick an article." —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I think the complexities could be handled with a Post-It note. As for the temporal range of the card, it seems unreasonable to call it a good card if it's temporary. Also, let's cut the six categories to two, and we could have several variations of this card: Math/Philosophy, Space/Culture, Chemistry/Politics, et cetera. (I'd recommend for game dynamics the categories be paired rather obscurely). Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This card seems too helpful to me, and using turns would be rather akward, depending on the number of players. How about this: "Every three rounds, look through your deck for an article card that you would like to play. This card expires after three articles have been created through it." I think that it would be easier to just pick an article from your deck. Thoughts? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Vandalize an article every turn. Is unaffected by blocking. After a report processes, rate of vandalism is reduced to every 2 turns. Does not count towards total bad cards (for losing condition).
Whoops! I thought it was implied that it was also unaffected by reporting. Which way would you prefer? Unaffected by reporting, removed when report processes or something in-between: reduce the vandalism to, say, every 3 turns? 23•3210:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I guess I never actually read through the rules very thoroughly. That explains a lot. But it would still be easier to say something like "unaffected by edit sacrifice." (a concept I do understand). —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add "and after 3 reports have used towards this card, or an IP Ban card has played, discard this card." anyway, Support!ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well then, edit the text to reflect that (or clarify). Something like "Each round this card is in play, all pages in a WikiProject are improved by one class." But I guess that makes it sound too powerful, doesn't it? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "All articles covered by WikiProjects may be advanced one class. All subsequently created articles covered by a WikiProject advance a single class as long as the Guide to WikiProjects is in play." Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But have you noticed they mean different things? That version excludes WikiProjects added later from the benefit, and also differs in the case of an article covered by two WikiProjects. 23•3204:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about changing it to "Bonus to articles from WikiProjects is increased by 1 class. Immediately apply this increase when a new WikiProject or applicable article is drawn."? It might be a little to lengthy, but at least it clarifies that. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other suggested variation: "Add 3/5 of an edit (3 bot-edit-counters) to an article." It makes more sense that you can use one of them alone. 23•3212:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion about this: instead of having one generic card, have a wide group of cards that all work like this one, for some variety. Maybe some of the existing edit cards might also fit in as 'small'. Heck, maybe even give all edit cards a value, and they give the article that much improvement (in fifths of a class). 23•3213:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Removing or reporting bad articles is free. When playing an article, you must put down an edit card and flip a coin; if it is tails, the edit card must be discarded.
Maybe not no more, but something about only being able to achieve a real status in the wiki's hierarchy, or something. Do you recall something about that, Bob? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol.......great inside joke there. Let's focus on gathering quotes and illustrating cards right now....this page is getting so heavy that we've now lost both Canvas and Hi. By the way, we had some tornadoes this week, so I can only access the Internet on occasion at a library. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Add to a Bad card. Discard this card only when either that card goes out of play, or instructed to by another card. (In other words, target card now counts twice towards collective loss.)
One of the two (three, if you include Dubian) cards that started said discussion used that link, and in the end we changed it. The other card used WP:BATSHIT, and was changed to...something. The card was Temptation (see above) and it was replaced with WP:BIM. From these prior examples, I still see hope for this card if we change the link.--CanvasHat17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks. I makes me feel better not being the only one with profane language in my proposals.
The opposite of my "double bad" idea; this page link has the advantage of already having an illustration ready to go (Wikipedia-tan in meditation). I'm willing to separate the mechanic and the link, if anybody can think of a better mechanic for WP:ZEN. Thanks,Luc "Somethingorother" French22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basic idea: Permanently (or at least until Achieving Harmony is removed from play) removes the targeted Bad card from the count of Bad cards in play when considering Collective Loss conditions. The idea is the opposite of the WP:POT idea immediately above; rather than making the Bad Card a problem for everyone, this makes it only a problem for the player effected by it. Useful for avoiding collective loss. Going over the rules, this might be a Wikipedia card instead, if Wikipedia cards are allowed to have targets. Maybe instead the ability should be "increase by one the number of bad cards that trigger collective loss"? Feel free to suggest another mechanic, if you can think of a better one for WP:ZEN. Thanks,Luc "Somethingorother" French03:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what I think...it seems to imply that conflict on Wikipedia is necessary in order to maintain a sort of ecosystem, which might actually be true. What do the others think about this? Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having the card raise the number of bad cards needed to lose by one would be a better way to word it; it is less confusing, that way. Also, if said target bad card were suddenly removed, this card would sit there doing nothing, unless we want to add a chunk of text explaining that you must pick a new target. I shall support if that change in text is made. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support! also, I think it originally means "this edit card always affects, it doesn't get blocked by other cards". ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Text: Whenever you play an edit card to improve an article, instead make 4 edits and roll a die for each: improve the article on every roll of 1; on any other roll, your edit was unconstructive. You may sacrifice 4 edit cards to remove this card. If you lose your turn for any reason, remove this card.
Have you misunderstood something? You only have a 13.2% chance of making at least two improvements (11.6% of 2, 1.54% of 3, 0.077% of 4), but have a whole 48.2% of having all four edits unconstructive and useless. The average is 2/3 of an improvement. This is actually detrimental rather than beneficial. 2³•3²11:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I had misunderstood. (This is what happens when I participate in RfC's on my lunch hour!) I'm not sure I like needing 4 edit cards to kill it. Perhaps it could stay in effect until you create a new article? (After all, rapid edits can be very beneficial when creating a new article! Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like having it go away when a new article is created; however, the possibility that four edits could be made in one go still seems to me like a bad idea, as improbable as it is. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how about this? Once 2 of the edits succeed in improving the article, all the rest will be unconstructive instead of being determined by die roll.2³•3²09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support! I didn't find it! also, preview button doesn't affects reverting vandalism IRL. but, let's make it a double edit with Uncommon rarity. ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments
Caption: Well, that doesn't look right.
Caption (Alternate): That beter get fixxed.
Text: Improve an article by one level, if it has no vandal markers. Can not improve an article above B level. Nutster (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support NutsterProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, copyrighted material! The title isn't so much Wiki related too. Maybe for take the reference to the Monty's we can change the title in something like "The administrators' flying reverting" or "The Spammers' flying vandalisms". But... the reference works or it's considerate copyright? (Sorry, I'm not so well versed in this subject!)Justmeonhere (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Since I Support! ed almost every cards, can I propose it now please?
by the way, how this card doesn't exist??? ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
also, to be clear, even though 'Vandalism' card is kinda-instant, it just stays for a round without activating. clearing those cards are through some edit cards, or instant. ProDuct0339sayworkproj 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Text: Grants the Cabal Member status. Players with this status can not be blocked, and may choose to bite a registered user each turn, making them lose 1 centijimbo. If a player with this effect is unable to bite the targeted user, they will be kicked out of the cabal and any blocks that they may have avoided will be applied.
I would suggest half of all edits of one vandal because it seems too much maybe. But probably vandals will not have that much edits, but all edits is too much, maybe 7/8. APeruvianBall (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Replaces 2 extended-protected articles with The FitnesGram™ Pacer Test copypasta
Quote: "The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.""
Comments
This is funny, but the effect doesn't seem too clear, and I think the FitnessGram Pacer Test is copyrighted. Maybe this should be a card that is about replacing article content with copypastas, and the text should be this: "Two articles are replaced with a copypasta. Add a vandalism counter to two articles." The quote could also be something like "The WikiGram Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test..." RteeeeKed (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Text: Someone just clicked on a link that told them not to click it, and caused an awful database error! Add vandalism tokens to articles that do not have them until you are up to four vandalized articles. If there are less than four articles, add vandalism tokens to every non-vandalized card. If there are four or more vandalized articles, do nothing.
Comments The image I had in mind of this was a cropped version of the explosion that appears when you click the link that tells you not to on the beans page. Also, the title of this card would be in comic sans and red. RteeeeKed (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I would really really appreciate it if people actually bothered to read policy/guideline pages rather than just quoting them like some fighters in an old kung fu movie ("WP:Drunken fists!" "WP:RETAIN!" "WP:Flying mongoose!" "WP:DIACRITICS!" "WP:Shadowless Fist of Death!")" – Volunteer Marek, some time on 5 April 2011.
Quote:"If you have a coffee-stained mug with a Wikipedia logo on it, you may be spending too much time on Wikipedia. Why not spend some more time and take this test?"- Anonymous
Text: At any time, you may hold up this card and roll a die. If it lands on 1, 2, or 3, make an edit on 2-3 random articles. You can't use this card again for four turns afterward.
In hindsight, some of these aren't very balanced. Especially the WikiWolf one. I attempted to base the card abilities on the descriptions given on their pages, but I'm not sure about how I ended up doing. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The word "VChimpanzee" is aligned incorrectly; it ought to be right-aligned with the quote's rightmost boundary rather than with its rightmost text, if that makes any sense. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure how many people need to approve the card before it is considered "approved", but I like it! The picture goes very well with the text. EWikistTalk 14:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
.svg)
Facepalm . You are indeed correct that I feel quite foolish. But wait... Are we using the version with the "This card has no special ability" text, or are we figuring out a different phrase? EWikistTalk 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, since we have no real guideline for a quote besides, ya know, being WP-related, I found a randomish WP-related quote (on WikiQuote) that made me smirk: "Individuals who have tried to edit the pages about Barack Obama — to reflect the incontrovertible fact that he is not God, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan — report that their contributions have vanished within minutes of posting them." - L. Neil Smith, "Announcifications From Your Publicatorialist: Wikipedia, Missouri, and Ceres", 15 March 2009 —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Like
Like
On hold until the autoconfirmed card gets approved
Completed
In progress
Discussion ongoing...
There are some points: 1) There is no Minecraft UBX page, 2) Rarity is not changeable, it is used for production rate ( I think?) and 3) Minecraft is copyrighted, so a userbox sounds impossible. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Heavily trademarked franchise, if the rumors I've heard about the creator of this are true. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
—Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Brambleberry Chat ♠ Watch
16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
and i thought is an deserted page!
![[1]](http://wptcg.wikia.com/wiki/File%3ASample.svg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://wptcg.wikia.com/wiki/File:Esp.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
