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
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