Explain. I don't get how it would be an article card. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (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]
So which -space would this go into? Otherwise, I like it, now that you have explained it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 14:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change that class to "Page (bad)"? Because this wouldn't be an article, being in the project-space. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 00:07, 8 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]
"Please do not feed the trolls." Bananaclasic (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Love it...the illustration that usually accompanies this with the country-style guy in the hat would be perfect for the name "Bill", too! Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (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!
Extended content
Comments
Sounds good. Mix all of those ideas into a proposal, and I'll comment on them. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 00:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Text: 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.
Proposed by: CanvasHat 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC) although it was Nicky's idea.[reply]
Comments
Extended content
I think an explanation of how it would attack articles on politicians would be good. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just like I proposed it, identical to Marvin but only for politicians. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain specificlly how it would work, if you don't mind. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Alrighty; that works. I've edited the "Text" section to reflect that. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fallacy" seems more accurate to me, but I like it. A quick, simple, entry-class vandalism. We need more of these! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 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.
Proposed by: --CanvasHat 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are more humorous ones out there, but this is one that caught my attention. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I like the idea; we can just cut off whatever runs over, preferably cutting off half of a word. We need to make sure that the link is legible, however. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 19:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally just realized you created a template specifically to demonstrate that...I'd be curious to see how else you intend on using that template... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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...--CanvasHat 23:39, 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) @WikiShrek 06:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Extended content
Seems good. although we may not be able to fit all of that onto a card. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 21:52, 28 November 2010 (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]
We'll have to get creative with this one. Maybe t would be a WP-class card that has an effect on the MW software. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! And it breaks the page formatting.....hey, you are really onto something....now I have a really sweet idea for illustrating it, don't steal it! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Wow, that was quick.) I don't know what it would be. Maybe WP:VAND? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems too simple, but I can't think of anything else. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is a bit general, but it's the best we have for now. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just +1 vandalism, leave out the opponent bit. All players share the main article space. WP:VAND is good. No reason to make it more complicated than that. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? It's still complicated, but slightly more ruly [opposite of unruly] as well. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:32, 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.)
Proposed by: CanvasHat 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Extended content
Ignore the sechead----CanvasHat 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might have to use an ellipses in the title for that one. In a real article, it rolls over, but I can't see how we'd represent that on a trading card. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 think we should use that as the title, if we can figure how to fit it. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't, unless we change the format of all of the other cards. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 01:00, 28 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 think I understand what you said. What is it that you want done with this card? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean, use that as the title for this card and don't worry about any hard-set policy, it's really not a big deal. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:39, 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]
Special pages are hard to make, naturally special cards would be rare. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:01, 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]
I think, since the proposal below takes care of this one's original idea, it should be Al, just another troll who concentrates on videogames. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak the proposal to reflect that, and I shall comment on it. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's my place to, but I've changed it. If you're uncomfortable with ME being the one who changes it, feel free to undo. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I guess the one I commented on below is a dupe of this. I'll support, and I'm willing to try various things to get the title to fit. I've got a few ideas for this one. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the title to make this make more sense. This one's just alphonso, the one below is the one you're thinking about. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for clarifying, Nicky.) Hmmmmm....I'll suggest a slight modification-- "Turn over one bad card if there is a video-game-related article in play." Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rules imply at least 170 cards, I think a few variations per card would be completely appropriate. I'm sorry if I sound a bit stressful, it's just my head. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:04, 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]
I—I don't see why not. Yes, that sounds logical enough. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:27, 2 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]
Seems good. This should be a rare-ish card, however. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of spoiling the fun...does this have to do with something someone would likely be doing on Wikipedia-- looking for Waldo? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 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]
Ack! You're right! I've been straying off topic... I now oppose this card. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make a pun, it's really that some editor found your article. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense...perhaps a title like "Noticed!" would suffice; it'd also save us the effort of royalties. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it, although I don't know why I keep thinking of cards that will infringe on copyrights. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who find a task second nature are often regular practitioners of that task...do you infringe on copyrights regularly? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 18:54, 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]
I just liked Newton's idea of an "equal and opposite" type of user. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd originally written 'Anti-vandal,' Hi must've changed it. I don't know what this would be. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:LAME#Userboxes, this is a deleted userbox reading "This user is pissed/annoyed about admins ignoring policy." Not sure what effect is should have, but seems like a good concept to build a card around. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 05:30, 30 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 like it. Or perhaps, all admins ignore all good and bad policy-style (WikiProjects aren't policy-style) Wikipedia cards while it's in play? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like both proposals. Perhaps we could use Hi878's rule for this card, and Bob the Wikipedian's rule for a separate WP:IAR card? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for an IAR card, that ought to be extended to non-admins as well, and I'd also make it a single-turn type deal. In fact, it could be issued as both a good card and as a bad card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
only if the quote explains it (bloody cold, let me tell you) . if not, then some right-minded citizen will delete london's climate section((this is a real redirect) and put per WP:TCG...--CanvasHat 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, that's exactly the kind of vandalism folks here are prepared for. That's what makes this an excellent choice-- we've already got the London Climate Guard armed and ready. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:57, 31 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...
Umm, isn't being a virgin sort of the opposite of pornography? There are two pictures on the article Virginity which should do quite well. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
This seems a little powerful, and too similar to the instant effect of #WikiProject Chemistry. How about instead, this card gives the user a bonus of one vandalism removed for every edit to a chemistry card? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:26, 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]
Woah. You're correct. I'll change the wording of this proposal accordingly. I'll also recommend we clarify that in the rules sometime. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it bother you that you don't remember what you supported? It bothers me, somewhat... :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me feel like all those democrats who signed the healthcare bill. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 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]
Because it's not a one-time effect. It's one effect per chemist per chemistry article. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 21:18, 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]
Hey this is Category: Wikipedian Chemists. So should this be all Chemistry related BLPs get the bonus? ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣Talk 02:21, 19 October 2012 (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'll let you handle the chopping; I'm not very good with knives. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:25, 29 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]
Interesting. So all articles advance one rank, and no credit is given. Oddly, I like it. In fact, I'd support this as a model for most future WikiProject cards. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:41, 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]
Well, if the WikiProject improves the article, you don't get the cJ-- no one does. That's what (I believe) Antony has suggested. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly, my dear sir. I don't think that CJ-giving should be messed with in any way. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm aware you're a stickler about that, my question is whether this idea goes against yours or not. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody gets these particular CJs, which interferes with someone getting CJs for every card upgrade. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it adds a neat twist-- suddenly it's possible to make it through a game without becoming an admin. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 January 2011 (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]
Woot, found Hi's limit! I agree with you btw and proposed your unwritten law become written. I expect FULL support from you, Hi. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have granted my full support in this matter. I am glad that it will now be set in stone (or whatever these computers are made of...). ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing solid-state drives on a blade system. I think we've got ourselves a WikiProject now. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. Quote. Sorry, should have proposed this later.--CanvasHat 16:25, 15 December 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) @WikiShrek 06:55, 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) @WikiShrek 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you aren't seriously thinking we could use that quote... As for the picture, it bugs me as well. I think we can come up with something better. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 19:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What, you don't appreciate the weeks of tireless nights it took me to find a Wikipedia-related quote? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek 08:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better with more red? Or, alternatively, I could draw a picture of some unicorns with gummy bears on their back, or something to that effect. Or we could use the following image. Actually, this probably isn't such a good idea.--CanvasHat 23:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]--CanvasHat 04:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good picture of unicorns, or probably a composite of images from Commons.--CanvasHat 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not the best picture idea. :) As for the quote, it doesn't really say much of anything... ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 18:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the quote not saying anything is exactly what we're going for, is it not? As for the pic, I still think it would be perfect if we redid your original scribble in crayon. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek 06:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should want the card to make a bit more sense; the quote seems too moronic, and the picture seems too unprofessional. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 04:52, 4 January 2012 (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) @WikiShrek 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unless we can find something funny, this quote works well. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 03:09, 11 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]
Barely alive... All that has happened for quite a while are comments in this section. :) I like that picture, and agree that cropping would be necessary. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 03:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barely alive? More like undead :) I like the new pic. We skipped a step... but nobody really cares, do they? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. And I'd like to point out that, as prophesied, this project is a zombie project now. Bloodthirstily accepting any newcomers. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a pretty pathetic zombie; aren't they usually a bit more intimidating? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So then, are we ready to illustrate and skip a step? This one card could be the one that gets our project running again! —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • alibi) @WikiShrek 07:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking for a job and have lots of stuff on my plate right now, otherwise I'd do some illustrations. Will you pay me to do it? Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Will you accept third Zimbabwean dollars? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 22:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link, darn you! Good otherwise. I think that I need to add something about that to the editnotice; I hate saying this constantly. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 05:56, 28 December 2010 (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]
I cracked up the moment I saw the giant "Links!" in the edit notice. Then I read it. Sweet. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, here's a question: Do you want to be trained in my evil ways? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which way, oh great master? The evil way of not sorting the proposals weekly? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm doing it now! However, if you could trout me if I forget some part of it, that would be helpful. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, the trout noticed you didn't move any discussions to the appropriate sections. Hurry, it's watching you!!! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! Consensus determining! I can't handle it! But seriously though, it will be interesting to see if my computer can handle such a large page. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:01, 6 January 2011 (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]
"WHYS YOUS KIL ME MASTODON" (Not said by anyone, but should still work) Sungodtemple (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Comments
Support. *Shoots the angry mastodons and sells them to the Smithsonian, then retires and develops a trading card game* Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, developing the trading card game atop loads of blood money is quite wonderful. What brilliant insight you have. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know I was referring to that and not the proposal‽ I thought nobody would notice that! ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 06:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought that originally, then thought, "nah, I won't be a smart alec". But I read it again a few days later and just couldn't resist. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:02, 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]
A very good idea. I was thinking about something along those lines, but I was busy adding ichnoboxes to ichnos articles at that time. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 23:22, 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]
I think that we can probably find a better quote; I think that we should go for a funny one with this card. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 00:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mind linking to that revision? The page history is somewhat ugly, and I'm having a hard time telling which part of that quote Ckatz actually provided. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 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]
Well, I guess it's [his] fault the sentence was ever created... —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Hopefully their tempers I'm seeing expressed in the edit history won't flame up if they see who got credited. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 20:33, 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]
Extended content
Comments
What I would recommend is that this actually be a good article card instead of a bad one, and just have it start with three vandalisms. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording would be a lot simpler. Support with Bob's improvement. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you really make me wish there was a [Like] button in the randomest places... —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:12, 29 May 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]
Maybe the text should be "+1 vandalism counter" —Preceding signed comment by Nicky Nouse (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we only need to state that when it's multiple counters...2 counters or more. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
.svg)
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)
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)
Like
