Wikipedia talk:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 2:Cards

Well, I think we need to figure something out first...

Before having individual card proposals and what not, I think that we should pick between the three styles of cards on the other page. Also, I have someone that I can get to come and help with designing cards; that's the part that I will be no help with. :) I'll still comment on all of them, though. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved (thus far) person, I like the article design best- it's unique to Wikipedia and minimally stated with basically ready-made modifications available. However, I think consideration of the new/old logo and skins will have to be done- which is preferred, an up-to-date look or an "in ye old days of Wikipaedia" look? sonia♫ 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I tihnk that article-style is the best, and I think that monobook would look better for a card design than vector, so I say just go with that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia design is a great proposal. We should, of course, use the updated layout. Of course, one should keep in mind that games such as Magic, the Gathering have taken on new looks over the years, so subtle changes in the cards won't likely throw off players too much, so long as the reverse face remains exactly the same forever. I will request we do a rounded edge on the cards... I can't stand cards with angles...and they get torn so easily that way. Once it's clear we're all in agreement, I'd be happy to put together a template that anyone with PowerPoint can easily edit, along with instructions for editing and saving. And I'll go ahead and create a new entry using the updated layout... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, PowerPoint isn't being very friendly as I try to create the new Wikipedia-style layout. Since I need two borders to display with a blue-to-gray gradient I am forced to use a second shape for the border, and getting this to line up correctly when printing to a file is next to impossible. I think vector format may the best alternative, and probably a better one anyway. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rounded edges is good. However, I shall never agree to vector. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've finished creating the new WP-style template card in Inkscape and have uploaded a low-res PNG of it. Seems like there must be a way to improve on it, but I don't know what that might be. Ideas? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size to make it look less thrown-together in general. If anyone has other suggestions for improving the layout, speak up. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this new one, but i think it must have a background in the Acces Level tab, if not it looks a bit incomplete... Apart from that, I like the design.--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume by "background" you mean you'd prefer the the blue coloration of the inactive tab over the white coloration of the active tab? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as you made now 3 designs, I like the one in the middle, but if the 2008-2009 wp design. Also I would like the background cover all the card...--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be bad if I said that I really don't like the new design? The whole design is too boring; with the original article-style one, I think that it looked somewhat interesting, without overdoing it, like the third one. This one is probably my least favorite after the first one, which is just awful. Round the edges of #2 and I think that it would be perfect. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about vectorizing that one here soon. Take note that the text on the original WP-style one will be too small to read comfortably once printed; it'll need to be enlarged. I'll have a vector of that one drawn shortly so we can compare more accurately. I'll use the same general layout for it as the one I just unveiled, for more accurate comparison. We can always move icons around and such; none of it is set in stone. I'm really tempted by that old WP-style myself-- the textured background just feels so much more professional than the thin blue lines on white. Actually, while I'm at it, I'll update the description on both of them to actually have the currently accepted description to help avoid future confusion. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I think you should work on making a better monobook one, personally; just forget about this stupid vector stuff. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "vectorizing". Vector art is different from raster art in that it can be scaled more easily. All the proposals I've made so far, including the third proposal that looked similar to popular trading card games, use a vector graphic editor (originally I was using PowerPoint, but switched to Inkscape since Inkscape gives me more control and allows for a much better PNG export). Anyway, here's the 2008-2009 style using the same elements in the new style. The reason I left the little box at the bottom out that appeared in Proposal #2 is because I really don't know what to put in it. If you think of something to put there, I can do that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll find I've redone the cards so that they are all easier to compare by using the same image and text in all of them, and also by scaling the text in the original so it would be legible once printed (it was like 6 point, which is too small for a playing card). Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

i would think it would be cool would we made the tab say something like edit, and the class would be a category.--CanvasHat 23:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Same here, but I think we better only have an "edit" tab on the Edit-class cards. The "requirements" box is bugging me....it takes up quite a bit of the space on the card and only has a single number in it. If we do all the Access Level cards like this, we'll have to condense the text and image on them in order for it all to fit.Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image 2 has been updated per RatonBat's request for the background to appear on it. Please be sure to refresh that page after loading it to ensure the cache is cleared. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When?

When are we going to deside which card we will use? And will there be a voting again for it?--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 02:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting is generally not the choice method in decisions on Wikipedia. We prefer arriving at a consensus. And we're still discussing the positioning of various elements. However, I think we're ready to start getting proposals for various card names/texts. Be sure and have a thorough look at the rules for the game before proposing a card, of course. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I come from wikia, there people usually vote... However, I have 2 questions:

1. Will all the cards have the same design (or will the good cards have this design and the bad ones will have another)?
2. Which will be the design for the back of the card?--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 12:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We have not decided yet; everyone who wants to can voice their opinions when we formally open a discussion. When the decision reaches a consesnsus, someone (probably Bob) will approve it, and then we'll be set. However, if you want my prediction, I think that we will end up with all cards having the same stlye, and something with some form of the Wikipedia globe for the back. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A card back been proposed already (although there was no design to accompany it). I'll illustrate their proposal into a graphic file in a bit here, after I take care of what I'm doing presently. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Raton-- Actually, yes; we'll need some way to distinguish each of the different classes of cards from one another. This could be done with an icon or color variance. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded an image that conveys what I assume you meant for the reverse face, Raton. See the project page. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but the wp logo looks a bit like deformed... Maybe we could put the wikipedia trading card game logo, the one that is in the template and in the main page of the wp tcg.--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that one did look a bit rough; so did the other ones. I have changed the export resolution and reuploaded the four sample images now, so if you refresh that page you should see the cleaner version now with smooth edges and no letters "missing". WP:TCG logo on the reverse face? Coming right up... I've got something I need to do, and then I'll get right onto that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the one with the TCG logo looks perfect; it's unique. The globe is fantastic, but it appears everywhere. Plus, the one with the TCG logo doesn't have a little square around the picture. ;) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops...those cards aren't supposed to be transparent...I wondered what "square" you were talking about and then I noticed the alpha channel is showing on both cards. Both are intended to have a solid white background, which I'll include in my next upload of them (but not tonight...off to bed now for me). Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected cards

For protected cards, I think a simple lock icon in the top corner will do, next to the required access level icon. Which color of protection lock should we use? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you meaning the card you play to protect an article, or a protected article itself? If the latter, we supposedly won't have those; you have to play a card on it to protect it, according to the rules. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true, so long as we don't want any cards that are automatically protected. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote (Or !vote, if you prefer)!

I think that we should vote/!vote/whatever on which card back we like, and which layout for the front that we like. The ones to choose from would be on the main Phase 2 page. Follow the same format as me, to make it easier. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)}
  • Back: The one with the TCG logo. The globe is too common, and the TCG logo, is, well... The TCG logo. And it looks pretty darn cool.
  • Front: Monobook 2008-2009 layout 2 (with background and border for text). The first looks strange; it's only somewhat article-ish. The second is sort of mixing Vector and Monobook; I think that we should pick one. The has everything in the box like an actual article would, and I really like the tab idea at the top. I have changed my mind. While I absolutely despise Vector, having that sort of style mixed with a little bit of Monobook looks better for a TCG. 03:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Back: I prefer the TCG logo. Plus, the media rights might be less strict.
  • Front: I prefer the second one. While it would be ideal to have a card that only represented a single skin, the new Vector skin looks more professional. However, without some sort of background, it would look...blah. If anyone has an idea for a different background, let me know. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• 03:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!}
  • Back: As Hi878 said, the wp logo is too common, and the wp tcg logo is--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC) the one which represents, obviously, the wp tcg...
  • Front: I like the second one, as it looks like the skin we've got now.
• 05:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea.

In one of the old design suggestions, meaning the idiotic Pokemon-ish one, there were little quotes that had to do with the card, such as this and this. I think that we should implement that into whichever design we use. Thoughts? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully support that. In fact, I would have included it, if it weren't for the fact that there's no room on the card due to the number of design elements we're trying to use. The box at the bottom and the tab at the top-- together, those take up more space than you'd think. If we eliminated those two elements, we'd have room for a quote. And I got the quote idea from the game Magic, the Gathering. I used to just sit there and read the quotes all day. Redemption uses Bible verses in place of quotes. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I say eliminate the box at the bottom, and put everything at the top. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Right...and I just realized the picture caption is taking up a significant portion as well. Perhaps the caption ought to be replaced with the quote? Answer speedily and I'll get those images uploaded speedily Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I say that we should now have a step in the card-nom process, between original and picture, where you can nominate an interesting quote. I think that it should need to be a quote from anywhere on Wikipedia or a Wikipedia IRC channel. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Beat you to it. :) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Um... Wouldn't having the amount of centijimbos needed for a permssion upgrade in the top-right corner be bad? We won;t use centijimbos for anything else, so it seems like having it in such an exposed place would be a bad thing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the card class. For user access levels, the cJ is the requirement. For edits, articles, and userboxes, the requirement is the user access level, which can be represented with an icon. The appropriate icon for the user access level is currently displayed next to the permissions listed on the UAL card, in the latest proposal. Of course, if you've got another idea, I'm all ears. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's good, now that you have explained it. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So.....I guess y'all are ready for me to start designing cards. :) I've got a busy weekend this weekend; hopefully I'll be able to get around to it soon. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. :) Make sure to have the title of a page on each card so that the person could read about it. Maybe we should mention in the rules that the page name at the bottom of each card is the name of a Wikipedia page? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A diagram of the parts of a card wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Use the rollback one that is already made. I think that it pretty much covers everything. By the way, I think that we should make sure, in each proposal, that someone puts a link that will be on the card; just so that we never forget to. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one!

Perhaps, at the bottom of each card, we could have a web address that tells where you can read more about what the card represents? Some people might enjoy seeing these pages that may not have, so I think that it would make sense to put the address at the bottom. Thoughts? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not bad at all. Great idea, in fact! I'll be sure and incorporate into future proposals. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it! This also may bring more users.--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It may? How? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind...--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Userbox cards

[1] Thoughts? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like it... Do we really need to add more things? :) I think we should see if what we already have works before we try adding more. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We've got a few userbox proposals already, I believe. We'll need to prepare ourselves for them. This topic isn't about can we, it's about how will we. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What I was meaning, I think, was that I didn't like having the userbox on the card. I'm not sure why I wrote it like that... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ideas, then? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just use the picture from the box, and make it like all of the other cards? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can do! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So...

As far as I know, I'm going to actually start doing things here again. Shall I take my job back, meaning shuffling proposals between the various pages, or has somebody else fallen in love with it? Also, what do I need to know that I have been missing? I would love it if someone could just give me a summary of what's been going on in my absence. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! Summary: I caved and like your idea. I saw Antony-22 at the WP:HIED summit earlier this month and he's not sure how active he'll be. Not much else has happened. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First: Which idea? Article card format? Second: WP:HIED? :) I'll get right to work... Sometime... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First: Article card format. Second: outreach:Global University Program. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sponsored Cards

I think that we need to make a decision on this one, so I'll start it. Here are our options:

1. Allow companies to sponsor cards.
2. Only use copyrighted subjects if we get permission, but with no money exchanging hands.
3. Not allow cards with copyrighted subjects at all.

I prefer option number two, as I don't like the idea of the cards being paid advertisements, but I think that we should be able to use the cards if they let us. What are your opinions? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 is sort of appealing, though I think we'd definitely need to clear that with the Foundation. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is what we decide on, I'll let you deal with all of it. :) I don't like the idea of having the cards be ads. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)