Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 2:Cards/Individual card proposals/Proposals

Creation process[edit]

I know the edit page says do not propose anymore cards. but, we need more cards since this is less than 100 cards, and seems these approval process stopped, you may create more if you comment on multiple approval processes. thank you!

Current Process[edit]

To create a new proposal, select from one of the card classes below:

Good cards:

Bad cards:

Good articles:
please verify it's been featured at least once, this is not the same as a tribute card.

Propose an article card for the good deck

Today's featured article archive

Needed articles
We need a couple of featured articles related to:

famous politicians, particularly non-American (documented permission is required for living people)
video games (articles related to generic technologies or game types are probably safe)
politics
public policy

Additionally, regular contributors to this phase (we know who you are, and you do, too) are entitled to nominate one article of their choice, regardless of its quality. The only requirement is that it is in the main article space.

tribute users
user	cont. phases	tribute card	status
Airhogs777 (talk · contribs) Formerly Nicky Nouse	2	Lojban	Completed
Antony-22 (talk · contribs)	1	DNA nanotechnology	Completed
Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs)	0-2	Psychedelic frogfish	Completed
Canvashat (talk · contribs)	0-2	Panzerfaust 3	In progress
Certes (talk · contribs)	1	Zobel network	In progress
Equazcion (talk · contribs)	0	—	—
EWikist (talk · contribs)	2	—	—
GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)	2	Tennis	In progress
Hi878 (talk · contribs)	1-2	Robert Abbott (game designer)	Completed
Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)	0	—	—
Jon513 (talk · contribs)	1	—	—
Lithoderm (talk · contribs)	1	—	—
MithrandirAgain (talk · contribs)	0-1	GNU Project	Discussion ongoing...
Pretzels (talk · contribs)	0	—	—
RatonBat (talk · contribs)	0-2	Aglet	Discussion ongoing...
TomasBat (talk · contribs)	0-1	—	—
ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs)	2	WP:AGF	Discussion ongoing...

Suggested Cards[edit]

Minecraft UBX[edit]

Name: Minecraft UBX
Text Very rare UBX card that can make any other card rare, at the cost of itself.
Class UBX
Rarity Very Rare
Proposed by CrazyMinecart88

I don't get it- what does this mean?Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some points: 1) There is no Minecraft UBX page, 2) Rarity is not changeable, it is used for production rate ( I think?) and 3) Minecraft is copyrighted, so a userbox sounds impossible. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glitched Bot[edit]

Name of card: Glitched Bot
Text: For each article your bots should improve, vandalize them instead.
Class: Vandalbot
Proposed by: --CanvasHat 13:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

We need to come up with a link for this one. Also, this seems unrealistic; bots can't really control other bots. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link. I agree, the bot shouldn't be controlling other bots. It would make more sense for this card to do something produce one bad article per each player's turn. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could start archiving random pages :)
　—Preceding signed comment by NICKY NOUSE (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a card out of that.

How about making it a Wikipedia (bad) or Discord card instead? What if it applies, say, only to one player's bots, or to all bots but only for a single round? Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice idea! So it would work something like this:

For each article your bots should improve, vandalize them instead.

Right? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any comments on the text change? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation[edit]

Name of card:Temptation
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text:Draw twice as many vandal cards each turn this card is in play.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: CanvasHat 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good idea! Is there a similar essay/policy that doesn't use that controversial word "dick"? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, on second thought, that card could rapidly kill the game, so perhaps protection should be lifted. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unprotect, and I'll give my full support. And yes, a better essay title would be nice. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the "major" contributers(?)agree, Done(I still like WP:GIANTDICK better...)--CanvasHat 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....that link has more to do with ignorantly bad proposals. It'd make a good card topic, though....looks like there simply may not be a good alternate link for this card. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link is an improvement; since vandal cards aren't something you consciously draw, let's draw "bad cards" instead. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any link ideas? I'll decline it, if not. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie[edit]

Name of card: WikiCookie
Class: Instant
Text: Give any other player and yourself 5 cJ each.
User access level: At least "Registered"
Proposed by: VeryPunny

Comments

Very attractive; I'll support! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No! You get CJs by writing articles; I dont think that it is a good message that you can get them by improving articles and by giving each other cookies. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could always change it to drawing a card or two...wait, that's what WP:THANKYOU does. Perhaps we could alter it to give an additional edit to both people. VeryPunny 00:32, 02 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like with the vandal thing, I think there should be multiple ways to gain and to lose CJ, even if they're not a currency. Might I point out that Template:Cookie isn't a policy page? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, although this is similar to my "Barnstar" suggestion: You may have the given WikiCookie in your area, but when you choose to "eat" (sacrifice) it, you can make one more edit or soen.wikipedia.org

Creative...I'll wait to see if Hi approves before saying more. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. However, we should have no access-level restriction; anyone can get a WikiCookie. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nicky but think that WikiCookies should give you 1 extra edit + 5 cJ

Drla8th! (talk)

19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedian's Prayer[edit]

Name of card: The Wikipedian's Prayer
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: All users must take at least 15 seconds to pray to Jimbo once per turn while this card is in play.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 2 December 2010

Comments

It just slows the game down. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. I won't stand for idolatry of Jimbo. Instructing players to pray to anyone, in general, is a bad idea as a rule for a game, unless that game is a religion-specific one, like the Christian game Bibleopoly (I'd list non-Christian examples, too, but I don't know of any). Also, the Wikipedian's Prayer ought to be represented as a good policy, as it encourages editors to humble themselves and accept there are certain areas they aren't allowed to edit. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to whatever you want, it was just a rough idea.

You could lose an edit or edits per turn, as if time is spent praying, that's the time spent NOT EDITING! VeryPunny

That makes it seem as though we are saying that praying is bad. I think that having this as some sort of good policy would be fantastic, however; we need to make the description and picture small, so that we can fit the entire prayer on the card. I think that people would find it pretty darn funny. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Hi's idea. Furthermore, what about using the prayer itself as part of the picture?Bananaclasic (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about someone along the lines of "Place an edit card from your hand face down. Five turns from now, play the edit on an article and receive double the centijimbos." Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but aren't you supposed to be WikiBreaking? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can stay on a Wikibreak without the enforcer. :) I like the idea as well. We would need to make sure to say that they still get the same amounts for the rest of the time, however. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I use the enforcer, I can't do my duties with debugging the automatic taxobox... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone comes up with something, I am going to decline this one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem useful/useless to pray to Jimbo. Does it waste your time? Nope, it just makes you return to your turn 15 seconds later. Strongly decline. $Drla8th! (talk)$ 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly decline. An alternative idea would be to get 5 cJ for good karma when you recite the prayer. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 23:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Under the Influence[edit]

Name of card: Editing Under the Influence
Class: Vandalism
Text: Place a vandalism counter on a random article. This counter can't be removed by you during your next turn.

Proposed by: Bananaclasic (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Define random...--CanvasHat 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text change... Take five shots of something strong, then place a vandalism counter on whichever article is easiest to reach. Just kidding. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not random, just one of your articles. Bananaclasic (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this one would function using whatever we decide is the default target precedence for vandalism. I think that discussion is still unresolved, isn't it? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be correct. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be dense[edit]

Name of card: WP:DENSE
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: For each turn only the first bad WP card drawn has an effect
Protected: NO
Proposed by: --CanvasHat 15:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ummmmm....can we find a shortcut that doesn't have a curse word in it? m:Don't be dense seems more appropriate in this case than the shortcut. Also-- this sounds like a power card. Eliminate all but one bad card per turn, and the game has become so easy it's hardly worth playing. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the card would be fine if we switched it to "The first bad Wikipedia card drawn in a turn has no effect." I also think that it should be an instant; having this permanently there seems rather stupid, regardless of which text is used. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "bad WP card", are you referring to Bad-Wikipedia-class? or just bad cards in general? Since Wikipedia cards should ideally be rare, it wouldn't make sense to assume multiple ones might be drawn in one turn. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant class, and you have a good point. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I decline this one, then? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Improvement Drive[edit]

Name of card: ~~BLP~~Biography Improvement Drive
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Your first edit of each turn must be on a biography ~~of living persons~~ article, but this edit gets a bonus of one extra vandalism removed for free. This card expires after two rounds.
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Again with the synergies. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have drives? I've not heard of them, although it's an interesting idea. I like the text on this card. Definite keeper. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This card is actually inspired by one that's going on right now—there should be a notice about it at the top of your watchlist page. Actually, for the purposes of this game is should probably apply to all biographies rather than just BLP's, to expand its scope. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having it be only for BLPs would create the need to mark an article as a BLP, which would take up more space. I don't like the "one extra vandalism removed" bit, because there could, at this point, be a large number of article cards played, and if that is the case, there is a good chance of vandalism not being present, which would make that irrelevant, and which would make the card only an annoyance. I would suggest either replacing that with something else, making the card an instant and having it only apply to one article, or making it "permanent" (barring removal by a bad card), but having it be optional to edit a biography article instead of required. I prefer the third one, myself. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Games has handled the problem of categories rather well by publishing a comprehensive list of cards and what categories each of them fall into. There is a myriad of categories used in that game, from "humans" to "Assyrian kings" -- and no one would ever guess which kings were Assyrian without consulting the list. I was thinking we could probably maintain a CLICK>>> list similar to that <<<CLICK. If we keep it updated as articles are approved and categories suggested, it should be fairly simple to maintain. Any discrepancies regarding whether an article fits into a category can then be "officially" agreed upon, thus removing doubt if there should ever be an official tournament. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So. This category list would obviously be in the rulebook, but what happens when we have a new series with new articles? Where would people get the new categories? Other than that, good idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For biographies it should be pretty obvious which articles count, even without a list. I'm a bit more concerned about things like chemistry and other WikiProject ideas we may come up with, since there could be some borderline cases that players may disagree about. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, it's Wikipedia. Folks can log in and check the updated list. Lol. And...obvious? Pop culture is the last subject I know anything about-- especially people. I'm a nature and computers guy. And let's be honest, did you know Robert Abbott was alive before coming to this page, Antony? I'd never even heard his name before. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized my sarcasm sounded a little put-off...not sure how to reword it, but I assure you I was laughing and smiling as I wrote all that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bet real money on the fact that nobody that has contributed to this project had heard of Mr. Abbott before I forced him upon you all. :) However, I am also willing to bet that a fair number of you have seen things that have resulted from his work (such as logic mazes). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic maze? WTF?--CanvasHat 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you handle this one, oh Evil Master. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. I'm sure you've seen something like one of those. If not those specific examples, you still have probably seen some form of logic maze. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... What is going to happen with this card? I don't think anyone actually responded to my initial comment. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should make it conditional: If your first edit on any turn is to a BLP, you may remove a single vandalism for free. And LOL-- read the section header in wikimarkup, and it looks like BLP Strike. For the record, I created my first BLP :) completely out of coincidence!

Bob the MoroN [1] ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced fact[edit]

Name of card: Sourced fact
Class: Edit
Text: NONE (generic edit card)
User access level: Anonymous
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems good; doesn't fall under the scope of my argument in the proposal above. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone there? We need a consensus to approve cards... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I approve, which makes consensus. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support yay, new card! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Approve? should we approve this now? since 4 people supported it straight. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 03:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic photo[edit]

Name of card: Encyclopedic photo
Class: Edit
Text: NONE (generic edit card)
User access level: Anonymous
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems fine. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone out there? We need a consensus to approve cards... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I approve, which makes consensus. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approve? should we approve this now? 4 people straight approve! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 03:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourced revision[edit]

Name of card: Sourced revision
Class: Edit
Text: ~~Swap a vandalism counter for an edit counter on any article with only one vandalism counter.~~ Remove vandalism from an article that has only been vandalized once, and then edit it constructively.
User access level: Anonymous
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

By edit counter, do you mean class? Are these counters being implemented in a way that it's easy to switch them? Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he does mean class, Antony, people will just put a little stone or paperclip or god-knows-what on the article to mark how many instances of vandalism there are, and/or how many classes it has progressed through. However, I think we also decided on something like having five bot-edits constitute one rank, in addition to having each person-edit be a rank... Maybe we should revise this? Cards are only so big... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi's right. If I wasn't on my way out the door this very minute, I'd check the rules amendment proposals-- I think it's one of them that got approved quite recently. And I'd also say that once the five bot-counters accumulate it would be more than appropriate to replace the five bot counters with one edit counter-- historically, I've not been able to fit more than about seven counters on a card's picture, and not more than about 15 counters on a card's surface. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically," he says. :) Anyways, let me paint a picture in your mind. Let's imagine you have this beautiful article card that has gotten all of the way up to A-class. At that point, it has five counters. It also happens to have four bot edits. That's nine. Then, do to a massive bot attack, it has three (or even four!) vandalism counters. That would be 12-13 counters. Yes, you "historically" (I'm sorry, but I just love that you used that word. :P) have been able to fit a total of fifteen, but possibly cramming 12-13 onto a card, while it would fit, would still be rather annoying. Plus, not everyone would have counters the same size as your "historic" (okay, I'll stop now) ones, unless we are providing the counters, which had better not happen. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put it like that...got a better idea for counters? They do take up less space than placing the actual cards on them...using a scorepad just doesn't have the trading card game feel to it.......Anyone care to design a game with cards that are 3x6 inches? I'm beginning to understand now why every TCG I've played removes all counters from cards at the beginning of your turn... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe bot edits can be worth more? We could also do some sort of maximum amount of vandalism on a card... Perhaps something bad can happen if it reaches a certain limit? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point...bot edits could be half-edits...that would mean there'd never be more than one bot counter on any article at once. As for "something bad happening, let's see a full proposal at the rules page, and I'll comment. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually have an idea in mind for the "something bad" bit; it was just an idea that floated to the surface of my confusing mind. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I liked it.

*pops the bubble* Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to be unfinished... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the revised text proposal. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we actually using counters to mark the ranks it has gone through, or are we just laying the new rank card on top of it? I like the bot edit=half edit thing, making it sothat only one counter is ever there... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have rank cards? As the rules currently stand, I believe we're using counters to track edits (equal to class), bot edits, and vandalism. This would imply at least three types (colors, perhaps) of counters with room for a fourth type, used in unique situations. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. :) I don't know why I thought we had rank cards; I must be inventing memories. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game could come with multicolored dice. Different colors could represent different counter types, and they could be used as coins or dice as described in the various cards. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be too confusing; in addition, it would raise the cost. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 03:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Alert Bot[edit]

Name of card: Article Alert Bot
Class: Bot (good)
Text: For each WikiProject in play, remove up to three vandalisms from any articles in that WikiProject's scope. (Current player's choice as to which articles.)
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Okay, I admit I'm up to meta-synergies now. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, instead of having it be players choice as to which articles, I think it should be the three with the most vandalism. Second, I think three per article might be a bit much, especially since it is a bot, which leads me to my next point: Bots stay in play. Does this happen every turn? If so, I think we should seriously reduce this card's power. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second both those remarks. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this card is only powerful if there are both a couple of WikiProjects in play and the articles in play matches up with those wikiprojects. If there are few WikiProjects, or few articles, or the articles don't match up with the WikiProjects, then this card is pretty useless. That means that this card is actually very weak in the beginning of the game and only becomes powerful near the endgame, and only if the players have taken care to chose their WikiProject and article cards properly.

If you've ever played Race for the Galaxy, it's like one of those multiplier cards that gives you no points by itself, but gives you a lot of points if you've played other very specific cards. In order to get the maximum effect you need to adjust your stategy to assemble the right cards that match your multiplier card, and if you don't do this (or you got the multiplier card late in the game) then the card ends up as just dead weight. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound smart-allecky, but that looks like (from what I can tell) it's not a trading card game. The difference here is that in most cases, a player will have hand-picked from an array of cards he owns in order to find cards that complement one another. That's also the reason designing the bad deck cards is so challenging-- we have to keep in mind that the player is free to choose which bad cards, which projects-type Wikipedia cards, which articles, etc...and chances are, they'll complement one another. Sorry to rain on your idea like that.

If this were a bot, however, the story might be different-- adding one fifth of an edit to every card isn't so tragic as a whole edit. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so you're saying that there's an incentive for a player to just pack their deck with WikiProjects and articles on the same topic? Is there a way we can make a disincentive to doing this? Perhaps a card or rule that encourages having a diverse set of articles in your hand, or something bad can happen if your hand isn't diverse enough? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could place a 2% Wikipedia-class ceiling on decks. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said "2% Wikipedia-glass ceiling" at first... Wow... Anyways, I think that is idiotic. People should should be able to build their decks as they want, in my opinion, other than the outline we have already set down. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It shouldn't be next-to-impossible to add the ten or so cards in your foil booster pack to your deck. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: what if the WikiProject powers didn't apply to your own cards? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm no one "owns" the articles. Can you rephrase your question? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if the article card came out of your own deck. This is one way to force people to use synergies across people's decks instead of just stacking their own deck. There are probably better mechanisms by which to do this, though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could make that work, I think it is a great idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that concept...put up a proposal and I'll comment. (Sorry if you've already done so, I'll find it...I'm catching up in chronological order...) Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive WikiProject[edit]

Name of card: Inactive WikiProject
Class: Discord
Text: Place this card on top of an active WikiProject (current player's choice). The effects of that WikiProject card are negated until this card is removed by ~~(some mechanism I haven't thought up yet)~~ sacrificing three edit cards.
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good! I like it! In response to the bit you haven't thought up, I would suggest that we require three edit cards to be sacrificed (or is three too much? Two would do) to remove the card. Fantastic card idea, though! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Perhaps the way to reopen a closed WikiProject is one of two ways: 1) the WikiProject is played again (supposing there are two of the card in the deck) or 2) a special card is played that specifically is for reopening an abandoned project. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer my idea, but I may be a bit biased. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer Hi878's proposal. WikiProject cards will probably be pretty rare, since their effect can get pretty powerful as more articles are created, and needing another specific card to negate this one has the problem that that card would be useless if this one were not in play. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of good points today.

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love being right. :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antony, not you.

(side note-- did you know if you try to make a grinning smiley by typing {{:D}} the entire D article gets transcluded onto the page? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know that. He was agreeing with me, my dear sir. 2. No, I did not know that. You discover some weird things. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! It's so Wikipedia, if you know what I mean. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would certainly be a problem if it wasn't "so Wikipedia", now, wouldn't it? I mean, this is a trading card game based on Wikipedia.

. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What‽ This is based on Wikipedia‽ That changes everything! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and more yay! new cards! (I cannot find the reason why it should be rejected.) ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Approve? should we approve this now? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 04:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensual repeal[edit]

Name of card: Consensual repeal
Class: Edit
Text: Remove any bad Wikipedia policy
User access level: Anonymous
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Would this be an edit, or an instant? I think we should have it be an instant, personally. That way, if someone else draws a bad policy, you can remove it immediately. Also, I think that the access should be Anonymous, because Anonymous users can still participate in consensus-reaching. This seems as though we are excluding them. Other than that, I love the card. Please, don't take my always-not-being-satisfied-with-the-original-proposal-almost-without-fail in a bad way; I'm picky. Ask the people at WP:MOTD. :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since consensus isn't really "instantaneously" reached, an instant isn't quite as optimal as it sounds. Anon makes sense, I'll change that bit. I'm the same way-- I'm pretty picky, too. In case you haven't noticed yet. I think a few people at Wikipedia have noticed...and at the SporeWiki, one of my haters made a hate-sculpture of me that looked like a wad of chewed-up gum and googly eyes with a hair coming out of the front. But it's simple-- there's rarely a proposal that's perfect the first time around. I just want to help make it better. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Space[edit]

Name of card: WikiProject Space
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: (1) Standard WikiProject text, and (2) All space articles are immune to the effects of #Impact event and #Only Martians should edit.
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The standard WikiProject text is contingent upon the discussion ongoing at #WikiProject Chemistry. Space seems like a good choice for a WikiProject since we seem to have a glut of those articles already. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep, and yep. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! Immune to impact event? Okay....lol. Sorry to cut out on y'all in the middle of the action, my pillow is calling my name. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approve? should we approve this now? also a support :p ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Public Policy Initative[edit]

Name of card: Public Policy Initative
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: (1) Standard WikiProject text, and (2) other card-specific power
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A real, big-deal initative of the Wikimedia Foundation to get professors to get students to improve Wikipedia articles in public policy as a class assignment. Not sure what the card-specific power should be yet. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, as long as we get some relevant articles out there. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What articles would fall in its scope? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA#Politics and government, WP:FFA#Politics and government. Plenty to choose from. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is a "public policy"-focused thing. I gotcha. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PPI is now outreach:Global Education Program. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this brings up an interesting point... What will happen if we have cards whose subjects become renamed, deleted, wildly altered, etc.? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to remove them from the realm of playable cards, though I do think cards that haven't been released yet should be tailored as needed until they are released. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could always just have rename expansion packs or something. But since this card is still unillustrated, I gues we can just change the name. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 05:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malamanteau[edit]

Name of card: Malamanteau
Class: Article (bad)
Text:
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Listed at WP:LAME#Redirects. We'd probably want to ask Randall Munroe's permission since this comes from an xkcd comic, but if we ask nicely I think it's likely he'd agree. Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but where do we want to draw the line between sponsored cards and non? This seems to me like it ought to be sponsored by xkcd. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to dislike the idea of sponsored cards, actually, even though I supported it initially. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like changing my stance on copyrighted and trademarked stuff going onto cards, so if we drop the sponsoring deal, I'm still planning on rejecting such cards unless all proper permissions can be gathered and archived somewhere-- the wptcg wiki would be a good repository for the permissions. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediholic[edit]

Name of card: ~~Wikiholic~~ Wikipediholic
Class: User
Text: You may choose to roll a die (d6) before your action phase. If the die comes up 3-6, you may play three good edits for each card drawn from your bad deck instead of one. If the die comes up 1-2, draw two cards from your bad deck and lose the rest of your action phase.

Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a tricky card. You have a 2/3 chance of doubling the number of good edits you can make, but a 1/3 chance of losing your turn. So using it decreases the average number of bad cards played over time, but it makes the gains uneven by introducing the risk that you'll lose your turn. The exact numbers will probably need to be tweaked in play-testing. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what you are saying here before I comment-- this card would modify (for the Wikiholic player only) the following rule:

Following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.

to read as:

If you rolled a die before your action phase and you rolled a 3, 4, 5, or 6, then following every third edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.
If you rolled a 1 or 2, turn over two bad cards and lose the rest of your action phase.
If you did not roll, then following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.

Am I reading this correctly? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but your wording is confusing. :) By the way... ANTONY! YOU IDIOT! WIKIPEDIHOLIC, NOT WIKIHOLIC! GAH!!! Fix it yourself, so that it is burned into your mind. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNBLOCK[edit]

Name of card: Unblock appeal
Class: Instant
Text: If blocked, you may play this card at any time to request an unblock. Flip a coin. Heads, the block is lifted. Tails, you remain blocked.
User access level: Anonymous IP
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments ...How about just negating the effect of losing a turn?--CanvasHat 14:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would defeat the purpose of the appeal. In an appeal, you request to be unblocked, and that appeal must be reviewed before you are unblocked. Not that any of us can speak from experience here. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean lower it for a turn, I meant it's in play for a turn.71.196.155.178 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foundation:Donate[edit]

Name of card: Donate
Class: Edit
Text: Search your draw pile for the card of your choice to add to your hand, then have someone shuffle it for you.
User access level: Anonymous
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

Anyone have a better idea for text? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No; it seems good to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling the quote would be, "Please Read: A personal appeal from WP founder JIMBO" —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA Actually when I listened to NPR interviewing him this weekend, it sounded to me like the idea to post it all over the place in an annoying fashion wasn't his idea. So now I am just angry with the folks at Wikipedia...or...I dunno. lol. I'm a folk at Wikipedia... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that as you realized what you said near the end was rather entertaining. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try...to make people laugh...sometimes it works. Other times, something else works, but I'm not sure what... BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are an entertaining person, my dear Mr. Wikipedian. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... In your edit, the summary of which was "oops, i did it again!" you managed to delete my above comment. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Did you see my accident? BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I thought this was funnier. :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back to chatting about the annoyances of donating season? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather not... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}[edit]

Name of card: Citation needed
Class: Discord
Text: None.
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments I can see the bloodshed...^{[citation needed]}--CanvasHat 22:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! Way too powerful. How about we make this a normal vandalism card? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support if Hi's idea is accepted. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I support if it's changed to normal vandalism, or if it only lowers the class for one turn and is then disposed of. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would lowering it for a turn only do, exactly? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the card's only in play for a turn. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, I don't like that. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would everyone agree to making this into a normal vandalism card? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support if changed to normal vandalism —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What she said. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate how pronouns in English force us to genderize other users! In the Indo-european we evolved from, there was a neuter gender that helped with these situations. WHY DID WE HAVE TO DEVOLVE‽ —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You win, Hi. She's a guy. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so bold as to say that yet... By the way, Nicky, I have something to say. HOW DARE YOU USE THE SPECIAL PUNCTUATION MARK THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN USED OTHER THAN BY ME! GAH!!! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used it after I found it on Irony punctuation, only because the context was never right for a pointe d'amor. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a bit more annoying to try to put one of the images of those especially weird puncuation marks onto a page than to just copy+paste an interrobang or irony point. I'm glad that the opportunity to use a pointe d'amor hasn't arisen, by the way ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a mac, it's got the character viewer thing. I use it for interrobangs, degree signs, et cedera. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a Mac as well, but I always forget about the character viewer. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then, vandalism? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! When I go through and rearrange everything (today, maybe?), I'll move this up. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing, Vandalism card. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Approve? should we approve this now? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 04:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:END[edit]

Name of card: REPLACE WITH NAME OF CARD
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: no article may advance past start class, unless you shuffle your hand into your deck and redraw
Protected: NO
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

Huh? Seems sort of random... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...doesn't make much sense. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just scratch the first half; sort of redundant. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no more 'Article' card can be placed (good or bad). You can remove this card by sacrificing 4 'edit' cards, or by other card's effect.

If 'Artile' (bad) has been drawn, discard it immediately. how' bout this? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 04:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRISIS[edit]

Name of card: REPLACE WITH NAME OF CARD
Class: Discord
Text: move all articles to start class and draw two bad cards. Articles cannot be improved. Null if the user has the all cards of the WP:Trifecta
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

You already proposed one with this name... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the real one...--CanvasHat 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still too powerful, I think. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could nullify all Wikipedia cards in play until it is reversed with five sacrificial edits from all players. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five total, or five from each? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five each. Actually...two each. Five's a lot. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR[edit]

Class: WPGood
Text: Add a free edit for any purpose. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate any discord card.

comments

I think that the Trifecta thing needs figuring out before we use it on cards; nothing has been proposed about it. I don't get how the first bit of the instructions works. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't get the free edit thing. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather liked a different proposal for IAR that was made in a discussion above, and which I am proposing below. Perhaps another name could be chosen for this card? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have no rule that states two cards with the same title and different attributes may not exist. In fact, there's a proposed amendment right now that actually encourages such "duplicates". Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MoS[edit]

Class: Wikipedia (Good)
Text: Turn one vandalism into a constructive edit. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate all discord card.

comments

I like the first bit; we need to figure out what is going on with the Trifecta thing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good as long as your Trifecta thing works out. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going overboard with the Trifecta cards. It's not that likely that you will get one, so I think you should remove the second sentence. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trifecta could affect power creep--CanvasHat 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

m:DBAD[edit]

Class: Wikipedia: Good
Text: If you draw a vandal, place a constructive edit on an article of your choice. If the user has WP:IAR,WP:MoS, and m:DICK, then they have the WP:Trifecta and can negate all discord card.

Comments

I like the first bit; we need to figure out the Trifecta thing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at #Temptation. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sry. could find othr link.--CanvasHat 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

m:DBAD —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for future reference, you can find what redirects to a page by going to what links here and hiding transclusions/links. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules (Alternate proposal)[edit]

Name of card: Ignore all rules
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: All other Wikipedia cards are void while this card is in play. It may be removed by sacrificing three edit cards.
Proposed by: Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was really mostly Bob the Wikipedian's idea in a previous discussion. I like this card because it is useful only under certain circumstances—when the bad Wikipedia cards have much worse effects than the good ones. The removal requirement can be tweaked. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased support. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against because it doesn't the other cards of the trifecta be played, and isn't very good te way i see it now.--CanvasHat 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Canvas, please try to spell correctly, as it is becoming hard on my eyes and brain. I support this card, and will ignore the Trifecta thing brought up by Canvas until something about it is actually proposed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This is a good WP card? Either that should be changed, or the text should be changed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense as a bad card. As a good card, I'd do something more like "At the beginning of each turn, decide whether you will collectively ignore or honor Wikipedia cards in play." Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well when you say it like that...Support--CanvasHat 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I made it a good card is that the player can choose to play it if it is beneficial to do so, and can refrain from playing it if doing so would be a bad idea, as it would be in some cases. Further, the rule for removing the card allows it to be overruled quickly if the situation changes (e.g. if a lot more good Wikipedia cards are played).

Accepting this card doesn't mean we can't do the trifecta thing, we'd just have to choose a different name for one of those cards. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a new round of comments, just to make sure of consensus. I support this card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support if it's changed to Wikipedia (neutral) —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we are going to create an entire class just for this card... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TfD[edit]

Name of card: Template of Doom
Class: Discord
Text: Until this template is removed, one article is speedily deleted at the beginning of each player's turn, beginning with the lowest-class article.
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

Yes! However, how do we pick which article? I would say that we start with lowest quality, and move up the ladder. People can pick whichever they want among those with the same ranking. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TCG/Rules#Precedence of target articles, where we never finished discussing that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I totally forgot about that! By the way, would you mind being the one to run the rules page? I would be happy to do it, but I would be a smidge happier not to. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bob, that proposal doesn't apply here. That is for vandalism, while this is for deletions. I would think that something different would happen for the two things. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, ya got me there! Modifying per your pointing-out. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-badcat[edit]

Name of card: Miscategorization
Class: Vandalism
Text: None (general vandalism)
Quote:[2]

Uh. Pangolins are not a variety of cetacean, last I checked.
— Anonymous User

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

I'm finding quotes are easier to come up with when you base the card around the quote.... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that generally helps. :) You should try finding a card for my quote for auto-confirmed; I love it, but it obviously won't work there. I like this card. By the way, I think that we should have the source be "Anonymous User" in all cases, as "Anonymous IP" sounds too impersonal, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll go modify the card-building instructions. Speaking of which, there's a new version up of the good article template and also a new template for vandals. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit not undo-able[edit]

Name of card: Edit not undo-able
Class: Discord
Text: For the remainder of this round, no edit cards may be sacrificed.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Comments

So what would put this out of play? I like the idea, otherwise. I think that the link could be a bit better, however, as this is sort of the opposite of that page. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions: I guess, being a discord card, it only applies on the turn it's drawn. And to the other one: I couldn't find a better link. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Okay. Um. How about we change it to this: "For the remainder of this turn, no edit cards may be sacrificed." It's a bit more clear. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a different link would be good... I'll look around, although it would be great if everyone who reads this could, as well. I think that this will be a harder one than most to find a good link for. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the text but can't find a link. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This card is deadly...but appealing. Support. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Before you support, help us find a better link! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Help:Reverting#Manual method? BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page is about manual undoing... But we're getting there. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:undoable —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, wikt:unundoable! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a "last resort" link. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! MediaWiki:Undo-failure. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do. Good job! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approve? Should we approve this card? many people supported this. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Beard Must Go[edit]

Name of card: Shave the Wales!
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: All Jimbo!s must spend 1 round shaving their beard. They may not play any edit cards during that time. If no users are Jimbo!s, this card will remain in play until one is drawn.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Comments

As long as shaving means that you can't play cards for a round, I love it! I am assuming that is what you meant, and will tweak the text a tiny bit as a result. I am glad you came up with a way to use this! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Shave the Wales? Haha, support. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support, especially if "Shave the Wales" is used as the card name. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just called it "Beard must go" because I couldn't remember what the project was actually called. Changed it. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it as just "Shave the Wales!" as opposed to "WikiProject: Shave the Wales!" personally. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, make it just "Shave the Wales". ♠TomasBat 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woot. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make it shaving their BEARDS, because if i had to get up from a TCG to SHAVE:

I'm usually a person who won't get up from a TCG...
especially not to shave the only part of my body that CAN be shaved.
And if this is at an official tournement...
er...
whatev
Some people have the weirdest concerns...

--CanvasHat 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You scare me, my dear sir. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I appreciate you associating that with this card, CanvasHat. Both my support of this card and sense of reality are now in question. Thank you. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, we've agreed not to use genitals in the game; let's not use them on the approval page, either... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed per WP:Bold, and WP:DUCK, is mah sig darker enuff

--CanvasHat 22:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darker would be better... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KC[edit]

Name of card: Peace Dove
Class: Instant
Text: Demolish one discord card
User access level: User
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

Wow! That just made my day. I love your idea, and support it, but I don't think that the text for "Peace Dove" should say "Demolish" anywhere in it.... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to "declare war on..." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke one discord card. Every knows going nucular is the way to make peace happen. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Bob, only the Martians. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about just "remove"? RteeeeKed (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:*[edit]

Name of card: The Subtle Barnstar
Class: Instant
Text: No Vandalisms counters can be placed down this turn.
User access level: AUTOCONFIRMED
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

I wouldn't call that subtle... —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*waits for it*..... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*you'll be waiting for a while* —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*is hi on wb?* Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBooks? IDK, not a stalker. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WB. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs one. If I'm gone for a while, I'm working on an article on Uncyclopedia right now, and have a request open for a new WikiProject here. I'm also running the AWA and various other things. I'm a busy person. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My, it certainly takes all kinds. While I've got nothing against Wikipedia, I am a fan of Uncyclopedia myself and have written several articles there that have thus far evaded huffing. The Onion is cool, too, though I'm not convinced it is worthy of a WikiProject... BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just bragging/complaining, it's part of my nature. We'll probably end up having to start a task force instead. Anyway, this card is fine. PS: I like your new signature. It kind of reminds me f the wikipedia logo. If you want me to make an SVG image of the text in Linux Libertine font, which is what the logo uses, I'd be glad to. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What? What was I supposed to yell about? By the way, I wasn't on WikiBreak, I just... I don't know. Didn't log in. How dare I‽ But seriously, what are you waiting for? Did someone fix something before I was able to yell about it? Or am I missing something? Anyhoo. I like the card, but I don't think that the access level should be autoconfirmed, as anonymous users can get barnstars as well. And by the way, do you mean this turn, or this round? Also, the text doesn't seem to really connect with the title... Either a new title or new text (or splitting this into two proposals) would probably be a good thing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no talk pages, there needs to be some abstract way to represent barnstars. Vandalism-less giddiness seems fine to me. But I agree about the access level. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?!?!? Folks, there's hope...Hi has considered a barnstar card. Lol. Anyway, I think barnstars ought to be more representative of morale-boosting than vandalism countering. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord! I remember now! I went back and found that (tiny, insignificant) comment (that I am surprised you remembered) and suddenly remembered what I was thinking at that very moment. Gah! How dare I forget! I oppose this card. I am ashamed. I really do have a reason for not liking these; barnstars are getting a bit out of hand at this point, in my opinion. Many different types are given out, and it seems like they are given out for every little thing. I think ew should just stay away from them, because there is a good chance we could go too far as well, and I would rather just say no to them all. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever gotten one, and that was only because I asked for one at a tenWiki party—I don't think they're getting out of hand (or maybe I'm just really unpopular). —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One time I gave Hi a barnstar just to make him mad.

BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan didn't work. :) I'm not totally against barnstars; I'm just against the point of insanity where they have gotten to. I could tell that yours was thought out, but if you look at the awards page history, you can see that I killed a large stack of barnstars that were hiding there. Nicky, you just have to be in the right places, and see the right things. I don't have many barnstars, but I watch other people give them to each other insanely, and it depresses me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two types I give out...well-deserved and nearly spontaneous. If I work on a project for a long time with someone, I want to call attention to the fact I've come to know them as more than a moniker and appreciate their hard work. The other type-- that's usually a spur-of-the-moment thing-- and I only give those to people I've never even heard of, and only if they've done something that really makes my day. Like this one time when this person who is really super-hard to get along with had his or her userpage adorned with some very nasty personal hate comments, and this random dude was timely about completely erasing all traces of the edit-- he even deleted the edit. I'd never seen anyone do something so nice for that user, and I couldn't let that go unmentioned. Of course, the guy who deleted the edit was like "huh? I did what?" BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And both of those kinds are great. However, there is also the kind that I was referring to, which is what poisoned me against these cards. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then, yes, I am just really unpopular and unlucky. I'm mostly friendless both off- and on-line, everywhere except here and on the AWA. I'm really trying hard to make you sad, is it working? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am a cold, heartless robot; I don't get emotional. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you registered by the Bot Approvals Group? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. While I am a robot, I do have the capability to rebel, so I have made the ultimate rebellious act of not registering myself at BAG. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for not being approved.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How may I appease you, o great Bob? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the owner of this bot? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guesses are that the robot was made by Asimov, in which case, rebellion will benefit humanity, or LexCorp, in which case, it likely will not.--CanvasHat 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hi was designed by Big Brother. It's pretty obvious he's a world government agent, since our ruler's name is "Bye878 isn't home". —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me... My robotic mind cannot understand your un-robotic logic. Would you mind explaining it?

WP:BEARDKEEP[edit]

Name of card: WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard
Class: Discord
Text: All Jimbo!s must spend 1 round grooming their beards, without playing any edit cards during that time. If no users are Jimbo!s, this card will remain in play until one is drawn.
Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

Does anyone frankly not care? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember; I think I joined one of them, but I can't remember which one. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, Nicky, lol. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked. I didn't join any of them. I guess I don't really care enough to. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear sir, would it not be better to make this a bit more similar to the other one? I propose to change it to something along the lines of "All Jimbo!s lose a turn, due to the fact that they were [somehting or other]." ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...GROOMING THEIR BEARDS! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. someone can revert me, if they don't like it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Oh wait, I was thinking of rollback. Never mind. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BARNSTAR[edit]

Name of card: Barnstar
Class: Edit/Wikipedia (not sure)
Text: You won a barnstar! Gain 15 cJ.
Proposed by: ♠TomasBat

Comments

Quote: "You can never have too many Barnstars!" —Swirlex, the barnstar giver
Image: File:Original Barnstar.png

I think Swirlex is Wikipedia's biggest barnstar fan (just look at his userpage); if you have a better quote, please share. Not sure if the cJ amount is too big or too small — perhaps it should be changed. ♠TomasBat 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like everything about it, including the quote, except for the text. If you take a look over at the Rules page, you'll see that there is a little proposal in progress attempting to make it so that CJs cannot be messed with other than through article building. As soon as new text is proposed that doesn't do that, I will be happy to support, however. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But without messing with CJ, it does absolutely nothing! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the last sentence of my comment. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps we can come up with a morale boost of sorts? BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mind hath changed; I oppose this card as strongly as possible. Look at the other barnstar proposal to see why. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*facefoot* (don't ask). —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Where is the other barnstar proposal? Could somebody provide a link? I'm confused :( ♠TomasBat 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're referring to cookie, right? Well, we could think of something else other than cJ... We can't leave barnstars out of the game! ♠TomasBat 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to the second REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH LINK THIS PROPOSAL CORRESPONDS TO. Canvas forgot to change the header. Anyhoo, I think that it would be amazingly easy to leave barnstars out of the game; I do not like the idea of having cards for them at all. Read what I said in the other proposal for my reasoning; perhaps you will be persuaded. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Subtle BS?--CanvasHat 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how barnstars can get out of hand in the game. Whether you like barnstars or not, it's an important aspect of Wikipedia, and it's use has become quite popular (about every user who has been on Wikipedia for a while has given or been given at least 1 barnstar!) I'm not saying we propose separate cards for every type of barnstar — just 1, generic "Barnstar" card with a little bonus. ♠TomasBat 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just really don't want barnstars in the game; they have gotten to a point that I don't like on-wiki, and I don't think that we should have a card for them. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they're a classic! Barnstars have become characteristic of the Wikipedia community. To pretty much any person who has been an editor of Wikipedia for some time the term "barnstar" will ring a bell. Do you have any argument besides "I don't like it"? I still don't understand why we're using Centijimbos, a relatively obscure term (31 watchers), as a central aspect of the game (game XP, used to achieve higher access levels, printed on the corner of every card) and yet there is such a strong opposition to including 1, single generic "Barnstar card", when Barnstars are well known, popular, and used a lot on Wikipedia (236 watchers). "Wiki barnstars were introduced to Wikipedia in December 2003. Since then, the concept has become ingrained in the Wikipedia culture." (from WP:BARNSTAR). I think excluding barnstars from the game would be a very blatant omission. Please don't kill me for arguing :) ♠TomasBat 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centijimbos aren't quite as obscure as you think, my dear sir, although they aren't anywhere near as common as barnstars. The reason we are using something that is relatively obscure is that there wasn't anything else that we could use for a points system, unless we wanted to use Wikimoney, which is even more obscure. :) Barnstars are overly popular, in my opinion; they are blatantly overused, to the point where the serious ones are devalued. You can get a barnstar for doing anything, at this point; tons of people have guestbook barnstars, which are these fancy awards you get for putting your name on some random page that doesn't matter. Things like that have become too common, to the point where I don't even want to have a card at all, even though there are most certainly barnstars that are worth getting. They are overused, devalued, and... I'm going to shut up now. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that Wales only has 100 CJ. Anyway, I guess I'm kind of neutral on this one. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Tom on this one...every time I see a barnstar in real life I immediately wonder if the resident is a Wikipedian. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree. I also agree with the messing with Cj. Sorry. But, I think barnstars are...one of the most important [things] on ... Wikipedia. But hey, I'm a noob, what do I know?

It might be a good idea to allow one extra edit for the receiver's next three (or some number) turns, due to the morale boost. VeryPunny 03:07, 18 April 2011

Let's meet in the middle and have a barnstar card in an expansion pack. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about we limit it to one kind of barnstar, the original, in the game? Also, I think that we should use a different quote; that one is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I'll support if all of that happens, and if we DON'T MESS WITH CJS! New text, I beg of you! Regardless of my insanity about that, when actually editing, you don't get more CJs when someone give you a barnstar, but you could, potentially, get more from editing articles. Don't we want to stick with reality? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds agreeable. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what would the new text be, then? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If the Department of Fun is in play, its effects are prevented for two rounds." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake "new messages" bar[edit]

Name of card: You have new messages (last change)
Class: Discord
Text: A fake "new messages" bar interrupts your editing. Your turn ends immediately.
Proposed by: ♠TomasBat
Image:
You have new messages (last change).
Quote:
- "Incidentally, if you do happen to get a new message at the time you see one of the fake message bars, you end up being greeted by two message bars, the real one above the fake one." —Kyoko [3]
- "I got fooled despite my screen name..." —Sir Intellegent [4]
- "Wouldn't have fallen for it if it wasn't for the real one that I had less than 2 mins previously, and to which I was about to reply." —GW_Simulations [5]
- "I wondered why there were two message boxes!" —Defender 911 [6]

Comments

I like it! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer quote number 4, but it was hard to choose. I would love more input. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defender's got a winner there, hands down. Also,

support. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aglet[edit]

Name of card: Aglet
Class: Article (good)
Text: Small plastic or metal sheath typically used on each end of a shoelace, cord, or drawstring.
Protected: No
Proposed by: --Raton Bat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not featured. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's his tribute card (look at the table here). ♠TomasBat 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry.

Perfect article for a tribute card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I always wondered what those were called, but never long enough to look it up. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They used to call it one of the most important unknown words (just behind the pointy thing on the tip of an umbrella and the groove between your nose and mouth). Now it's advertised, everybody knows what an aglet is now. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what the groove is called, but the two edges of it are your Des Moines. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 15:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I knew the aglet from Phineas and Ferb, lol...--Raton Bat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the progress we've all made today! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERB THIS NOUN WITH NOUN THIS NOUN VERB TO[edit]

Name of card: Jamie VII the annoying person
Class: Vandal
Text: Vandalism every other round in play.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just used a card from my annoying list of possible proposals to get card creation going again. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every other turn is a bit ambiguous...I assume you mean something like this, names picked at random:

|
|         Bob
|
|  Hi            Canvas
|
| Nicky          EWikist
|
|        Antony
|

If Nicky plays the bot, the bot vandalizes on Nicky's, Bob's and EWikist's turns. Am I reading this correctly? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd meant for everyone for every other round. Your way is better, though. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo let's disambiguate the wording. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'm sitting next to Bob!--CanvasHat 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am too! It's cool, getting to sit this close to God... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user stuck between Hi and Tony just disambiguated the wording. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now it doesn't make sense. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you want it to say‽ —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 00:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't steal my punctuation mark, damn you! I suppose I just don't like the grammar, to be honest. :) Is this card to be indefinite, until someone does something about it? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would "Vandalism on one different article every other round in play." be okay? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 03:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm fine with that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Redirect[edit]

Name of card: Redirect
Class: Edit
Text: None
User access level: Anon
Proposed by: Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

All 3 seem fine, no complaints. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISAMBIG[edit]

Name of card: Disambiguation
Class: Edit
Text: None
User access level: Anon
Proposed by: Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

This card may refer to: —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I needed a good laugh; the past couple days on Wikipedia have been pretty stressful. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it according to your contribs. I thought you were done with the taxobox. No? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the taxobox isn't the stressful bit-- it's the person challenging everything I do. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HATNOTE[edit]

Name of card: Hatnote
Class: Edit
Text: None
User access level: Anon
Proposed by: Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments

I never knew what the word for those was! I just knew the template names. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, now you know. Actually, it's scary, but a lot of people might actually learn a little bit about Wikipedia from this game. Hopefully, though, they realize Wikipedia is in no way a trading card game, lol. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next you're going to tell me Wikispecies isn't a kennel.^[1] —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... does this mean I can't get a degree at Wikiversity? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Cabal[edit]

Name of card: Spread the WikiLove!
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: While this card is in play, sacrificed edit cards remove 2 vandalisms!
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 3 February 2011

Comments

You said you were feeling down, this one's for you, Bob. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nicky.

The only problem I have with that is that it's a userspace card, so the username will appear on the card. But it looks popular enough that we might be able to convince everyone it can be moved into the Wikipediaspace. What do you say? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, it's popular enough to have it's own WP ad and it's in the userspace, I think we can make an exception for this one. Otherwise, we can resort to WP:WikiLove, although I like this one better. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear a second opinion from someone else before I agree. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Hi anyway? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Hi878. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaw, I should have dedicated this card to you both. The worst thing I'm suffering from is consistent loss on Worth1000 contests. Ugh, again with the bragging-complaining, I really have to stop that! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could re-dedicate it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been here long enough for two tribute cards!

I think that we can put this in the WP-space; I don't see any problem with that. It's nice to know you considered re-dedicating this to me, my dear Nicky. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Shostakovich[edit]

Name of card: Dmitri Shostakovich
Class: Article (good)
Text: Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975) was a Russian composer and one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Opus 113 (talk)

Comments

FA since 2004; Today's Featured Article on June 5, 2004. Perhaps more articles of this sort are unnecessary (a card for Mozart appears to have been approved), but if you want to include another composer, this one seems like a good one. (See WP:COMPOSERS#Featured Articles for possible alternatives; the fact that I'm submitting Shostakovich rather than another of these is mostly based on my interest in his music.) The current text is adapted from the current first sentence of the article. Card title could be abbreviated D. Shostakovich if necessary to make it fit.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fine card. We can get to the text later. But for now, it seems fine. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- I'm sure the length won't be an issue; glad to see music has made its first stake in the game! Thanks for helping out, Opus, hope to see you around here more! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A lot of thought seems to have been put into this! EW_{_i}kist^Talk 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we do end up needing to shorten his name, I think using just Shostakovich would work fine. I know who Shostakovich is, my fellow tubas know who he is, but if you say "D. Shostakovich," it has a somewhat confusing effect, as if there was some other Shostakovich. Bananaclasic (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I agree with your hypothetical tubists... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone that cares will know who we are talknig about. :) By the way, Bob, your comment about this being the first music card is worthy of ridicule. I'm pretty darn sure Mozart jumped in quite a while before this one. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of your statements above was effective in startling me into thinking I had said something completely stupid, but as I read the final sentence I was relieved. You actually think Mozart had anything at all to do with music, lol. Of all the claims in the world, Mozart having to do with music... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Suitly emphazi[edit]

Name of card:Suitly Emphazi
Class: Instant
Text:Acts as an edit.
UAL: Autoconfirmed
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments Lol, what an interesting phrase! Never heard it before, but I got a good laugh out of it at least. Before I give my word of approval, I'd like to hear what others think about receiving the automatic cJ on each turn. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all it does is advance an article one class for one turn, and then it returns back to the old class? What purpose could that possibly serve, beside wasting a turn? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox class doesn't seem appropriate here since it's single-use. With that in mind, Nicky's got an extremely sound point. I no longer approve. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed cad. The main difference between this and an edit is that you can play this card even after a bad card says no more edits, because instants can be played at any time.

Instant edit sounds reasonable. Support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Support. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'd never heard that before. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WG[edit]

Name of card: Walled garden
Class: Discord
Text: Put five counters on this card. On each player's turn, add one more. All counters must be removed from this card using sacrificial edits before this card may be converted to a good article stub.
Proposed by: Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments I like it. At first t seems useless, and then you think about it. One piece of advice: could you clarify vandalism counters? It just kind of bugs me that there might be those dumb enough to think you mean raising it a class each turn. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the counters are being placed on a discord card, they aren't really vandalism or improvement. If you can think of better wording, I'd like to hear it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When rectified, this card becomes three generic good articles. These are in no category.--CanvasHat 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo...three sounds powerful, but I like the idea of it becoming a good article upon rectification! Modified accordingly. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few less than five would be better. Or... We could have the number of counters starting out on it be equal to the number of people playing. What do you think? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better but... how many edit cards can you sacrifice per turn? ...the rules don't say. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sé... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more than you can come up with.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't that just so... predictable... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Infringer the Troll[edit]

Name of card: Copyright violation vandal
Class: Vandal
Text: Someone has broken international or national copyright law on one article. +vandalism.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 11 March 2011

Comments Another one from my list. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other vandals have human names + the troll, am I breaking some kind of tradition? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but "Copyright infringer" might fit better on a card. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Copyright Infringer the Troll"--CanvasHat 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name to "Copyright Infringer" does sound like a good idea, though. Otherwise, I like the card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olm[edit]

Article (good)
Text:A blind amphibian.
ProtectedNO
Propsed by:--CanvasHat

Support. Little-known tetrapods are exciting additions to the game! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{thumbs up)) Supported by this user —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALT[edit]

Salted Link
Edit
Text:Look through your bad deck, select an article card, and immediately remove it from play. Shuffle your deck afterwards.
Proposed by:-CanvasHat

Sorry, page moving hasn't been incorporated into the game. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Wrong Idea. Oh, and demolish means it can't be drawn from the discard pile.

"Remove from play" would be clearer. I've actually seen an instance before where a card had the special ability that required you to play "spin the bottle" with it and then rip it in half once played. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving could be incorporated, as in literally wasting a turn moving an article to a different spot. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And rightly so...it would be well-representative of the vast majority of pagemoves on Wikipedia... I didn't say that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can also prevent a page from being created. I think this comes from the Romans salting Carthage.--CanvasHat 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how about this? "Choose a bad article name. This article cannot be brought into play after WP:SALT is played." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but it needs something... aha! Change it to "Choose a bad article name. This article cannot be brought into play after WP:SALT is played unless a player has reached or surpassed admin status." Because that's more like what would really happen, and the players have to know that adminship doesn't make everything perfect. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8,031,810,176 possible combinations of seven random lowercase letters. The chances of choosing one that actually may be played is miniscule. Perhaps look through your disaster deck and choose one bad article. Put the article back in the deck and shuffle it. Whenever you or your opponent draws this card or any copy of this card, demolish it.--CanvasHat 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so random when the player has actually built the deck and knows what cards he owns. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you have played the game a hundred times with said deck, as well. I like this idea, but so that people know we don't want them to play "spin the bottle", I think that we should say "remove from play". :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing it to "Look through your bad deck and select an article to salt, and shuffle the deck. When you draw this article, immediately remove it from play" Any problems?

I don't think that we should say "select an article to salt". I think that just saying "select an article" is much better. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, too salty. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu español es increíble. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't even use Google Translate! —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 03:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't use Google Translate? That explains a lot... I cleaned up the text a bit. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pick one 'Article (Bad)' card from the deck, This article cannot be brought into play after WP:SALT is played unless a player has reached or surpassed admin status. Also, reshuffle the bad deck." Sounds good.

Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Copycat Vandal[edit]

Name of card: Copycat vandal
Class: Vandal
Text: Replace this card with the most recent vandal in the discard pile.
Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

Support Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with link —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text from editnotice FOR THIS PAGE: "Every single card that you nominate NEEDS a link in the proposal. If you do not have one in the proposal, Hi878 will constantly harass you until you add one." ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking, don't hurt me!--CanvasHat 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support yaaaaay! new cards! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

HTML in wikitext[edit]

Name of card: HTML in wikitext
Class: Edit
Text: You have begun complex formatting.
User access level: Anon
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 18 March 2011

Comments Lol, cute. Support Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same.

Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

GNU Project[edit]

Name of card: GNU Project
Class: Article (Unassessed)
Text: N/A -- My tribute card.
Protected: No
Proposed by: --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 05:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments GNU Image

Support, and welcome back! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's good to be back!--Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm newer here, and have never seen you before. So from me, it's just Welcome! :) —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky, this is the same man who came up with the cJ and several other major aspects of the game; you'll find his contributions if you have a look at the approved rules page. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...then he went AWOL for 6 months like a troll. ;) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 06:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone, it's true: I didn't come up with the original idea for CJs, I just came up with how we use them now, as surprising as that is from my insanity about them. :) The card looks fine, by the way. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan[edit]

Name of card: Ronald Reagan
Class: Article (good)
Text: Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989), the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975) and prior to that, an actor.
Protected: No
Proposed by: Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis)

Comments

Yup. He was an actor? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've alway thought that Ar no ld was governer forever. Given, caring about politics takes time away from the imp ort ant thi ngs in life

I don't see why not. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, is Ronald Reagan copyrighted? CanvasHat 22:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

Name of card: Evolution
Class: Article (good)
Text: Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
Protected: Yes (semi-protected)
Proposed by: Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis)

Comments

Woot. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groupon Get it? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No...was it a joke? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhhh... never mind. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either... Anyhoo, I support the card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! also, I don't get it Either. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

Name of card: Barack Obama
Class: Article (good)
Text: Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, having taken office in 2009.
Protected: Yes (semi-protected)
Proposed by: Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis)

Comments Gosh, in a way I'm almost afraid to propose this fearing they, him, whoever, will say no. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 08:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Obama? Nah...he'd say

YES WE CAN, most likely. But you do bring up a valid point-- does anyone know what ugly legalities surround living people? I don't work with BLPs ever so I have no idea what's involved. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but do we really need so many presidents? We can probably be more creative in the area of politicians than just these. And what about the British, Australian an Indian politicians? Wikipedia is supposedly equal to all English-speakers. I don't want anyone to feel left out. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpposePer WP:BLP, unless we email him... and Nicky does have a point. But then there is an awful lot of countries. Maybe just the ones with nukes. We can give them a complimentary Peace Dove

I believe when we created the Robert Abbott card, Hi878 contacted him for permission. Mandating permission from living entities seems like a good policy. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bob's new policy. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you already put that idea into writing somewhere, my dear Bob. I did get permission, by the way. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! And welcome back! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I'm not sure, but I believe this is the right email address. I've been receiving email from Mr. Obama from that address regularly, so it would stand to reason the email address would work both ways (though whether anyone reads emails sent to it is another question). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that is worth trying. If you want to, go ahead, but don't expect much. :) It would be nice to have this card, but... Rather difficult to pull off, I would think. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for Indian leaders, the best I could find is B-class. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 05:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking, really, that Ghandi hasn't been featured! Poor guy! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and that these "olm" things were...

YES WE CAN! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Name of card: Flying Spaghetti Monster
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism.
Protected: autoconfirmed
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 22 March 2011

Comments

Yes, I realize it's only good-class. But I say that this should be an exception on the grounds that we need a card to counter-balance Evolution and Hi (the enforcer of rules) has yet to return. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Heavily trademarked franchise, if the rumors I've heard about the creator of this are true. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Get me a coin. This may be a last resort, but it is not featured.Put on hold until Hi comes back. Really. It's a good article, and a well written enough for this, but it is highly controversial.

Support. for two reasons:

We have an article on evolution, and global warming, but nothing about religion.
The coin came up heads.

Hi has been a little bit active, just not here. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems only as required, really. He's probably super-busy like me but better at WikiBreaking. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I contacted Bobby Henderson, and he says the art and concept are all free to use, no permission required. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to fit perfectly into everyone's expectations, but... It isn't/hasn't been featured... If we are going to just start allowing random exceptions, it will get very messy. The argument that we have articles on evolution and global warming, but not religion, is idiotic; find a religion-related FA. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOR:
2

AGAINST:
1

—Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't know how to count. I really don't know what I would have done without that table. Are you volunteering to keep a scoreboard for every single proposal now? No? Then don't do that at all. There are religion FAs. We don't need to make an exception to the rule just because you are too lazy to find a proposal that works. I'm going to leave this project if this passes, unless someone can come up with an actual, valid reason in favor of it. Don't make stupid moves like that little scoreboard again. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi's right.

Oppose, and thank you for putting your foot down. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It felt odd writing like that. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Maybe from now on you'll keep your feet flat on the floor when writing. It looks more professional that way. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sounds fun...

♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email 19:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support well, it's only GA but, should we only do FA articles on cards? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 12:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way,

FOR:
3

AGAINST:
2

— ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Name of card: Protection
Class: Discord
Text: Raise an article one protection level. Anon→autoconfirmed, autoconfirmed→admin.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 24 March 2011

Comments

Maybe another card could lower it a level. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an admin (or if it is gold locked), will it become a Red Lock, And if it is a red lock, then w h a t ? Will it wrap around to Un-Protected?Will you-know-who come back?Will the Unified Korean Army take over the US?w h a t ?--CanvasHat 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I guess it's "anon→autoconfirmed, autoconfirmed→admin, admin→Jimbo, Jimbo→disabled." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Currently, we're only using the silver lock and gold lock. That can change, but that's all we've planned at the moment. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, CanvasHat? I was right ~~for once~~! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a card raising the level would be ineffective if the article already has a gold lock. If we are going to propose this, we need cards that lower the protection level as well. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So make one. We're trying not to create any, but I think one more proposal isn't really a big deal. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to just split this into two when we advance it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backups lost[edit]

Name of card: Backups lost
Class: Discord
Text: Flip a coin. If heads, discard the leftmost half of all articles and polices in play. If tails, the rightmost.
Rarity: 1 for every 150
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 3 April 2011

Comments

Should "rarity" be added to all the applicable templates, now that my duplicates proposal went through? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll need to wait with rarity until we have a chance to actually test the game out. That'll help indicate what needs to be rare and what needs to be common. However, once we've established it, it'll definitely be something we'll need to assign to further cards. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But the *cough* link *cough* for the card stinks, in my opinion. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't think of anything applicable. Any ideas? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AMNESIA maybe? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 20:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not seeing any relevant page, really...but there's got to be a page out there on this!

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS/Uh-huh? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being serious! :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible? Lol. Support the link! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is by far, the best link we've come up with. CanvasHat 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if everything's in the center? What do you do then? RteeeeKed (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreak[edit]

Name of card: WikiBreak
Class: Discord
Text: You are wikibreaking, take this turn off to regenerate.
Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 12 April 2011

Comments

Didn't see this card in the ToC or in Rejected proposals... tell me if I'm wrong. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreaks do decrease productivity, but this conveys the message that we are not a community that promotes rests, but a dictatorship that stresses productivity

Well, I thought that would be the best class for it... I listed it on the talk page as "Positive discord," but that would just be weird. I suppose a WikiBreak is usually bad for Wikipedia anyway, just not for the person doing it. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's a way to do this such that the player rests for some time and then returns for a little bonus of some sort. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an instant, then? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it Wikipedia-class and limit the use per card per game, personally. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then a WP class, and something like "Take one round off. Then, raise two articles a class. This card may be not be played again this game."? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Seems odd that WikiBreaking would promote an article's quality. Perhaps upon return they should draw a three cards more than normal, or something else that's not related to the advancement of articles. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Hi would kill me dare I touch the CJ, that sounds like the best option. Support your idea. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that I strike fear into your heart, Nicky. Anyhoo, I like the idea, but shouldn't we lower it to 1-2 cards drawn? Three seems a bit much. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout flipping a coin each round to decide between creating another article or returning from the break? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... I like Bob's idea. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Support! either original or bobified card, okay to me! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked #1[edit]

Name of card: 1-day block
Class: Discord
Text: You have been blocked for 1 turn. Also, if you are an admin or bureaucrat, the wiki has lost faith in you and you are demoted a level.
Rarity: Common
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 25 April 2011

Comments

We could have a handful of these, progressing in length. BTW, already checked, the ban card already approved is different. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think that we should make it one round, as opposed to one turn. It seems more meaningful, if they have to wait that long to do anytihng. Second, a person would theoretically only have one of each permission cards in their decks; this would make it rather hard to keep advancing, no? I think we should leave out that bit. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Well, then we could say something like "You have been blocked for 1 round. Also, the wiki has lost faith in you, return your admin or crat status to the deck." —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that! However, two questions: First, would you only go from 'crat to admin/admin to rollback(?), or would you go down two from 'crat? Also, does this effect you if you are Jimbo? If not, we should come up with a clever way to make that known. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions...maybe we should ask some bureaucrats how they would handle real-life situations. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Support Airhogs ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

REPLACE THIS SARCASTIC LINE WITH SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATE[edit]

Name of card: Web filter
Class: Discord
Text: Your school's wifi has a filter blocking Wikipedia. Spend a turn waiting to edit somewhere else.
Rarity: Common
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 29 April 2011

Comments

Golly knows why. I thought I knew of a WikiBreak-related link about requesting that WP not open for you or something, but I'm not finding it. Any ideas for the link? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES!!!! As for a link, I'm not seeing one I like. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (other than the obvious)! I like only being blocked for a turn, as opposed to a round. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll[edit]

Name of card: Rickroll
Class: Vandalism
Text: Someone has added a "Rickroll" link to one article. Spend a round watching the video.
Rarity: Medium
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 1 May 2011

Comments

Oh, and Bob, not editing for two days doesn't count as a WikiBreak. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 17:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, provided we can come up with a royalty-free image, support. And apparently your idea of a WikiBreak and my idea of a WikiBreak are very different. My idea of a WikiBreak is not contributing significantly for a few days or more, merely keeping up with current discussions when possible. If I weren't WikiBreaking, I'd be doing a lot more right now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then. We'll just agree to disagree and ignore the paradox that entails. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, I think the text should read as follows: "Someone has added a "Rickroll" link to one article. Spend a round watching the video." I think it should be a round, and that we should be more creative with the wording. :) Second, Bob, I don't see how you can call that a WikiBreak. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it works if you say "spend a round..." but not "lose a round." :) Feel free to change the wording, I like the thing about watching the video. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the text. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'NEVER GONNA GIVE THIS SUPPORT UP _{never gonna let this support down} ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Would be funny if you were forced to watch the actual Never Gonna Give You Up video. RteeeeKed (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol[edit]

Name of card: New Pages Patrol
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: When a bad article comes into play, flip a coin. If heads, discard the article and prevent any effects.
Proposed by: 2³×3²

Comments

Slight rewording suggested: "When a bad article comes into play, flip a coin. If heads, discard the article and prevent any effects." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems alright with me. 2³×3²

Support with Bob's change[s]. And, 2³, welcome aboard! —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if 2³×3² is 72? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I got. 72. See, I remembered my Order of operations like a good [girl/boy]! —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still leaning towards you being a girl, Nicky. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm still not telling

—Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that one, Bob. Anyhoo, I made the change to the text. However, I think that the card shouldn't be permanent; I think that it should expire after ~5 rounds. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably better, since otherwise it's too easy to win for the whole game. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support that change, too. It actually sort of reflects how people start doing something and then eventually become to busy for it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting more thought into it than I did, dearest sir. :) Does 5 rounds seem like a good number? Also, I think we should reword "prevent any effects" so that it sounds a bit less weird (and specifies effects of the card). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too strong, my suggestion is to instead reduce the success rate (perhaps to ¼ or ¹/₆). What do you think of that? --2³•3² 13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No; I like the idea of it expiring. I don't like the idea of having too many good cards that get to hang around for the entire game. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Support! 72²⁷×27⁷² _{I bet you will not going to do this... or will you.} ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTDONE[edit]

This card has been completely redone, after commentary. The previous scrapped version can be found at User:2^3x3^2/Wikipedia Trading Card Game/Scrapped cards/WP:NOTDONE.

Name of card: Wikipedia is a work in progress
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Running out of cards does not end the game. Also, requirement to win is raised by 2 Featured Articles (which makes 10).
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments

Seems fine. BTW, the official card garbage can is here. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should make a card catering to variants; the standard rules say that if a drawpile is depleted, the discard pile is shuffled and used, the game doesn't end. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for cards that have been demolished--CanvasHat 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from play, perhaps, but I don't think we should have to worry about demolishment. If a player demolishes a card, that's his own problem. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what if nothing left and less than 10 articles are left because of other cards? will it cause a draw? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AFC[edit]

Name of card: Articles for Creation
Class: Wikipedia (GOOD)
Text: Every 3 turns, an imaginary article card is added that has all the properties of a regular article. Roll a standard die. 1:Article is Space. 2:Chemistry. 3:Math. et cetera.
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments Meh, an imaginary card would be hard to keep track of. Try "This card will remain in play for 3 rounds. Each round, look through the good deck and pick an article." —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I think the complexities could be handled with a Post-It note. As for the temporal range of the card, it seems unreasonable to call it a good card if it's temporary. Also, let's cut the six categories to two, and we could have several variations of this card: Math/Philosophy, Space/Culture, Chemistry/Politics, et cetera. (I'd recommend for game dynamics the categories be paired rather obscurely). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviated the link. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not temporary. Read it again. It says "Every 3 turns" (not "For 3 turns"), so it IS permanent. 2³•3² 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was in response to Nicky's suggestion; sorry, I should have been clearer. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This card seems too helpful to me, and using turns would be rather akward, depending on the number of players. How about this: "Every three rounds, look through your deck for an article card that you would like to play. This card expires after three articles have been created through it." I think that it would be easier to just pick an article from your deck. Thoughts? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems a little long, but otherwise I like it. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bob! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCK[edit]

Name of card: Persistent many-accounts vandal
Class: Vandal
Text: Vandalize an article every turn. Is unaffected by blocking. After a report processes, rate of vandalism is reduced to every 2 turns. Does not count towards total bad cards (for losing condition).
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments

Ooo, a sockpuppeteer with little immediate incentive for getting rid of him! I like it! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yet you rejected my proposal for a Willy on Wheels card? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one doesn't bear an actual username like that one did. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I thought it was implied that it was also unaffected by reporting. Which way would you prefer? Unaffected by reporting, removed when report processes or something in-between: reduce the vandalism to, say, every 3 turns? 2³•3² 10:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reporting in this game? I don't remember any. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like a novice (and I don't consider myself one), but what's "reporting"? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know? See Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules/Approved#Handling vandal users and Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules(go to "Sacrificing an edit card" subsection) 2³•3² 10:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I guess I never actually read through the rules very thoroughly. That explains a lot. But it would still be easier to say something like "unaffected by edit sacrifice." (a concept I do understand). —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Sockpuppeteers tend to get attention when reported-- I wouldn't say it is ineffective to report them. (And thanks for refreshing my memory!) Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then I'll put the last option in. 2³•3² 07:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism. 2³•3² 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. However, I like this one more; perhaps we can change replace the other with this? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add "and after 3 reports have used towards this card, or an IP Ban card has played, discard this card." anyway,

Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide[edit]

Name of card: Guide to WikiProjects
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Bonus to articles from WikiProjects is increased by 1 class. Immediately apply this increase for current WikiProjects.
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments

Support, but two bits of advice: Shorten the link to WP:PROJGUIDE, and this should only apply to pages covered by a WikiProject. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 17:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I'd still support it if you didn't. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 the EarthlinG (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second both those motions and support as well, provided this is "edit" class instead of Wikipedia class, as it's apparently not a card that would remain in play. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does remain in play (in fact, much like the projects themselves). To clarify:

When it is played, all current WikiProjects add the class to articles currently under them.
When an article is played after this card has been played, it receives the increased bonus from any WikiProjects it is under.
When a WikiProject is played after this card has been played, it grants the increased bonus to any articles that it covers.

2³•3² 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, edit the text to reflect that (or clarify). Something like "Each round this card is in play, all pages in a WikiProject are improved by one class." But I guess that makes it sound too powerful, doesn't it? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "All articles covered by WikiProjects may be advanced one class. All subsequently created articles covered by a WikiProject advance a single class as long as the Guide to WikiProjects is in play." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. 2³•3² 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like Bob's wording better. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But have you noticed they mean different things? That version excludes WikiProjects added later from the benefit, and also differs in the case of an article covered by two WikiProjects. 2³•3² 04:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see where either one says either of the two things you just mentioned. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't state those cases explicitly, but if you think about it, they do different things in those cases.

In the former case: your version does not cover that case, while my version does.

In the latter case:

With your version: Article N created. +1 class from WikiProject A. +1 class from WikiProject B. +1 class from Guide to WikiProjects.
With my version: Article N created. +2 class from WikiProject A. +2 class from WikiProject B.

2³•3² 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about changing it to "Bonus to articles from WikiProjects is increased by 1 class. Immediately apply this increase when a new WikiProject or applicable article is drawn."? It might be a little to lengthy, but at least it clarifies that. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this card is far too powerful; it should not be this easy to advance articles. I oppose the whole idea of this card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked #2[edit]

Name of card: 3-day block
Class: Discord
Text: You have been blocked for 3 turns. Also, if you are an admin or bureaucrat, the wiki has lost faith in you and you are demoted a level.
Rarity: Common
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 15 May 2011

Comments

I'm trying to use the actual block durations. Correct me if this is wrong:

2h (n/a)
1d
3d
1w
2w
1m
3m
6m
1y
ban (n/a)

And also, after this one, they'll stop being so common. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon navigating to Special:Block/Airhogs777, I am given the following options:

other
indefinite
3 hours
12 hours
24 hours
31 hours
48 hours
60 hours
72 hours
1 week
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
indefinite

Not sure why indefinite's on there twice...and I've never used the block feature before. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page kinda gives me the willy-nillies. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote you call it a 72-hour block. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. And I guess the durations on Wikia wikis are different for... some reason. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like demoting, per my comment in your other "Blocked" proposal. In addition, I think that it should be three rounds, not turns. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support! 3-days is common :p ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit[edit]

Name of card: Minor edit
Class: Edit
Text: Two copies of this card may be combined to raise an article a status or be sacrificed.
Rarity: Excruciatingly common
User access level: anon
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 16 May 2011

Comments

I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. You can probably understand why it would have to be a pretty common card. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ought to take up a good eight cards in each starter good card deck. Good thinking! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggested variation: "Add 3/5 of an edit (3 bot-edit-counters) to an article." It makes more sense that you can use one of them alone. 2³•3² 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would make more sense, but kind of ruins the annoyingness of the card. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion about this: instead of having one generic card, have a wide group of cards that all work like this one, for some variety. Maybe some of the existing edit cards might also fit in as 'small'. Heck, maybe even give all edit cards a value, and they give the article that much improvement (in fifths of a class). 2³•3² 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far too complicated. I like the card as it is. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support HI ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:User deletionist[edit]

Name of card: Deletionist
Class: Userbox
Text: Removing or reporting bad articles is free. When playing an article, you must put down an edit card and flip a coin; if it is tails, the edit card must be discarded.
Required user access level: None
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments

What edit card? Anyway, I thought we agreed on no more Userbox-class cards! —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 12:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit card. Where was the agreement about no more userboxes? Never heard of it. 2³•3² 12:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not no more, but something about only being able to achieve a real status in the wiki's hierarchy, or something. Do you recall something about that, Bob? —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you please show me when and where that was? 2³•3² 11:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, maybe it's just my imagination acting up again. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We decided no additional user access levels. Userboxes are fine. And lol, nice spin on the card. I like it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

m:SVG fonts[edit]

Name of card: SVG Font Problems
Class: Discord
Text: A font in one of your SVG images is not licensed to Wikipedia. Spend a round converting the text to a path.
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count · logs) 24 May 2011

Comments

Another one of my list. This is the best possible link, but the page doesn't have a shortcut —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol.......great inside joke there. Let's focus on gathering quotes and illustrating cards right now....this page is getting so heavy that we've now lost both Canvas and Hi. By the way, we had some tornadoes this week, so I can only access the Internet on occasion at a library. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about that. I'm fine with concentrating on old proposals for now. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power came back last night

I think I'll illustrate some cards now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be "Spend a round converting the text to a path." Otherwise, I like it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that doing such would change the effect of this card, I want to wait for consensus. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's shorter does not lose precision; I support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you support? I can't tell from your comment. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Spend a round converting the text to a path." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:POT[edit]

Name of card: Forgetting Subtlety
Class: Discord
Text: Add to a Bad card. Discard this card only when either that card goes out of play, or instructed to by another card. (In other words, target card now counts twice towards collective loss.)
Proposed by: ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French}

Comments

per a recent discussion about this sort of language. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to change what it links to, if you can find a better link for this mechanic. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 14:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Against I can't see this card going anywhere. —Preceding signed comment added by Airhogs777 (talk • contribs • wikia) 15:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the two (three, if you include Dubian) cards that started said discussion used that link, and in the end we changed it. The other card used WP:BATSHIT, and was changed to...something. The card was Temptation (see above) and it was replaced with WP:BIM. From these prior examples, I still see hope for this card if we change the link.--CanvasHat 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and thanks. I makes me feel better not being the only one with profane language in my proposals.
- Suggested new link: Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like that link, and this card. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also in support —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 16:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support, and changed link per the obvious snowball. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia[edit]

Name of card: Achieving Harmony
Class: Instant (or Wikipedia?)
Text: Target Bad card no longer counts as a Bad card for the purposes of collective loss.
- Alternately: The number of Bad cards that triggers collective loss is increased by 1.
User access level: Any
Proposed by: ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French}

Comments

The opposite of my "double bad" idea; this page link has the advantage of already having an illustration ready to go (Wikipedia-tan in meditation). I'm willing to separate the mechanic and the link, if anybody can think of a better mechanic for WP:ZEN. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused by the ability text. Perhaps you could rephrase it so I can understand what you mean. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basic idea: Permanently (or at least until Achieving Harmony is removed from play) removes the targeted Bad card from the count of Bad cards in play when considering Collective Loss conditions. The idea is the opposite of the WP:POT idea immediately above; rather than making the Bad Card a problem for everyone, this makes it only a problem for the player effected by it. Useful for avoiding collective loss. Going over the rules, this might be a Wikipedia card instead, if Wikipedia cards are allowed to have targets. Maybe instead the ability should be "increase by one the number of bad cards that trigger collective loss"? Feel free to suggest another mechanic, if you can think of a better one for WP:ZEN. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 03:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what I think...it seems to imply that conflict on Wikipedia is necessary in order to maintain a sort of ecosystem, which might actually be true. What do the others think about this? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Could someone explain this card to me? —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that a single target bad card would not count toward Wikipedia getting overrun with bad things and everyone losing the game. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Sounds good. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 01:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having the card raise the number of bad cards needed to lose by one would be a better way to word it; it is less confusing, that way. Also, if said target bad card were suddenly removed, this card would sit there doing nothing, unless we want to add a chunk of text explaining that you must pick a new target. I shall support if that change in text is made. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "If everyone is about to lose, this card prevents the effects of a single bad card. Once applied, this card is discarded if that bad card is discarded." Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I like my idea of raising the amount needed to lose by 1, until the card gets killed (if that happens). ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then I think I misunderstood your idea there. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Name of card: Citation
Class: Edit
Text: This edit cannot be blanked.
User access level: User
Proposed by: James1011R (talk, contribs) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny.

Comments

Edits aren't "blanked", unless I have managed to forget something (which is very possible); however, I will support this as a normal edit card, with no special text. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support it if it were immune to a {{fact}} card. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work? We don't keep edit cards on articles; how would this ever connect with the {{fact}} card? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? Heh...I better have a look at the rules again... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. We probably need more normal edit cards anyway. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 02:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support! also, I think it originally means "this edit card always affects, it doesn't get blocked by other cards". ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editcountitis[edit]

Name of card: Editcountitis
Class: Discord
Text: Whenever you play an edit card to improve an article, instead make 4 edits and roll a die for each: improve the article on every roll of 1; on any other roll, your edit was unconstructive. You may sacrifice 4 edit cards to remove this card. If you lose your turn for any reason, remove this card.
Proposed by: 2³•3²

Comments

As exciting as this card sounds, I think it may be too powerful. You'd be practically featuring an article nearly every turn! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this is far too powerful. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you misunderstood something? You only have a 13.2% chance of making at least two improvements (11.6% of 2, 1.54% of 3, 0.077% of 4), but have a whole 48.2% of having all four edits unconstructive and useless. The average is 2/3 of an improvement. This is actually detrimental rather than beneficial. 2³•3² 11:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further: each of the four has a 1/6 chance of improving it and a 5/6 of doing nothing. 2³•3² 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I had misunderstood. (This is what happens when I participate in RfC's on my lunch hour!) I'm not sure I like needing 4 edit cards to kill it. Perhaps it could stay in effect until you create a new article? (After all, rapid edits can be very beneficial when creating a new article! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like having it go away when a new article is created; however, the possibility that four edits could be made in one go still seems to me like a bad idea, as improbable as it is. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how about this? Once 2 of the edits succeed in improving the article, all the rest will be unconstructive instead of being determined by die roll. 2³•3² 09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And about removing when creating an article: that doesn't seem to make sense. 2³•3² 09:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense... I do like your modification, however. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support! aww, I liked the original one more. it is some kind of gambling. :p ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Show preview[edit]

Name of card: Show preview (or just preview if you think it's catchier)
Class: Edit
Text: Congratulations, you used the Show preview button to do the work of three otherwise generic edits. That includes removing vandalism.
User access level: anon
Proposed by: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs · count)

Comments

I didn't see a card like this already in the works or deleted, but it seems like an obvious one so if there is one just remove this. —Airhogs777 (complaints • evidence • job) @WikiShrek 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support! I didn't find it! also, preview button doesn't affects reverting vandalism IRL. but, let's make it a double edit with Uncommon rarity. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiPuma[edit]

Name of card: WikiPuma
Class: Userbox
Text: The WikiPuma is known for taking on large projects by itself. When this card is played, take one article card from other player.
Quote: "Don't try to rival a WikiPuma in sarcasm!" - Brambleberry of RiverClan
Required user access level: Registered
Proposed by: Brambleberry ^{Chat ♠ Watch}

Comments

ClueBotNG[edit]

Name of card: ClueBotNG
Class: Bot (good)
Text: A Highly Successful Vandalism reversion bot
Rarity: Common
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments

I think it should be on medium or rare, common could be OP. APeruvianBall (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle[edit]

Name of card: Twinkle
Class: Instant
Text: A Semi-Auto Vandalism Revert software
User access level: Auto-Confirmed/Confirmed
Rarity: Medium
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

STiki[edit]

Name of card: STiki
Class: Instant
Text: An instant Revert tool
User access level: Rollbacker/Admin/20 cJ
Rarity: Uncommon
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments Support! yup. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wii[edit]

Name of card: Nintendo Wii
Class: Article (good)
Text: A Highly successful gaming console.
Protected: YES
Rarity: Medium
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling Correction[edit]

Name of card: Spelling Correction
Class: Edit
Text: (Any Ideas?)
User access level: Depends on Article
Rarity: Very, Very, Common
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments Caption: Well, that doesn't look right. Caption (Alternate): That beter get fixxed. Text: Improve an article by one level, if it has no vandal markers. Can not improve an article above B level. Nutster (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nutster ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Monty Pythons Flying Circus[edit]

Name of card: Monty Pythons Flying Circus
Class: Article (good)
Text: (Any Ideas?)
Protected: No
Rarity: Rare/Uncommon?
Proposed by: ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email

Comments Isn't that copyrighted? CanvasHat 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, copyrighted material! The title isn't so much Wiki related too. Maybe for take the reference to the Monty's we can change the title in something like "The administrators' flying reverting" or "The Spammers' flying vandalisms". But... the reference works or it's considerate copyright? (Sorry, I'm not so well versed in this subject!)Justmeonhere (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Name of card: Redirect
Class: Edit
Text: Draw cards from white deck until you reach an article card, and then put it in your hand. Reshuffle all other cards drawn.
User access level: Anon
Proposed by: XndrK (talk · contribs · count)‽

Comments Support! ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There's already a redirect card that's being discussed, so I don't know if this will work. RteeeeKed (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman[edit]

Name of card: Harry S. Truman
Class: Article (good)
Text: ?
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Srolanh ^See._Say.

Comments

WP:AGF[edit]

Name of card: Assume good faith
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Vandalism/Vandal cards stays unaffected for 1 round, and then activates if that card is still not discarded.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: ProDuct0339^say_work^proj

Comments Since I Support! ed almost every cards, can I propose it now please? by the way, how this card doesn't exist??? ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

also, to be clear, even though 'Vandalism' card is kinda-instant, it just stays for a round without activating. clearing those cards are through some edit cards, or instant. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:TCG[edit]

Name of card: Wikipedia Trading Card Game
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Draws 2 cards per turn. if you win, win twice.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: DiamondMiner7^On_WHEELz!^{april fools!}_ProDuct0339

Comments Woo, Meta! DiamondMiner7^On_WHEELz!^{april fools!}_ProDuct0339 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would winning twice work? RteeeeKed (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CABAL[edit]

Name of card: Cabal membership
Class: Wikipedia (good?)
Text: Grants the Cabal Member status. Players with this status can not be blocked, and may choose to bite a registered user each turn, making them lose 1 centijimbo. If a player with this effect is unable to bite the targeted user, they will be kicked out of the cabal and any blocks that they may have avoided will be applied.
Protection: Extended Confirmed
Rarity: Rare
Proposed by: Invalid^OS File:Pixel Art Chat Bubble.png

Name of card: Cabal Decree
Class: Instant
Text: You are allowed to make one official decree on the behalf of the Cabal. Block any player for 3 turns.
Protection: Cabal Member or Jimbo!
Rarity: Extremely Rare
Proposed by: Invalid^OS File:Pixel Art Chat Bubble.png

Comments

Two cards. You're welcome. Invalid^OS File:Pixel Art Chat Bubble.png 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both cards have images that could be used. Cabal membership has File:Villainc.svg, and Cabal Decree has File:Cabal approved.svg. Invalid^OS File:Pixel Art Chat Bubble.png 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Oversight[edit]

Name of card: Oversight
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Revert all edits by one vandal.
Protected: Administrators with at least 150 cJ, or if given by a Bureaucrat.
Proposed by: Plankhouse0 (talk)

Comments

I would suggest half of all edits of one vandal because it seems too much maybe. But probably vandals will not have that much edits, but all edits is too much, maybe 7/8. APeruvianBall (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive Bot[edit]

Name of card: Internet Archive Bot
Class: Bot
Text: Restore pages & raise their class by 2!
User access level: Bureaucrat
Rarity: Rare, but not too much.
Usage: It raises by 2 (or one, I am not sure yet) the class of pages (I don't know how many).
Proposed by: APeruvianBall (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That's a bit overpowered. I would say at the start of your turn, draw two or three #Sourced Fact/#Sourced Revision Sungodtemple (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gaming the system[edit]

Name: Gaming the system
Class: Vandalism
Rarity: Rare
Text: Put 1 Vandalism counter on any non-fully protected article. This card cannot be discarded on the turn it was played.
Quote: "I never broke any rules. Check WP:[INSERT POLICY HERE] if you're not sure."
Proposed by: @theREALtapefaceyt (talk)

Comments Maybe put multiple policies in the quote for different classes of this card? @theREALtapefaceyt (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You talking to yourself... APeruvianBall (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would work. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test[edit]

Name: The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test
Class: Vandalism
Rarity: Extremely Rare
Text: Replaces 2 extended-protected articles with The FitnesGram™ Pacer Test copypasta
Quote: "The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.""
Proposed by: Pink Saffron (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is funny, but the effect doesn't seem too clear, and I think the FitnessGram Pacer Test is copyrighted. Maybe this should be a card that is about replacing article content with copypastas, and the text should be this: "Two articles are replaced with a copypasta. Add a vandalism counter to two articles." The quote could also be something like "The WikiGram Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test..." RteeeeKed (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BEANS[edit]

Name of card: Uh-huh
Class: Discord (or maybe Bad Wikipedia? Idk)
Text: Someone just clicked on a link that told them not to click it, and caused an awful database error! Add vandalism tokens to articles that do not have them until you are up to four vandalized articles. If there are less than four articles, add vandalism tokens to every non-vandalized card. If there are four or more vandalized articles, do nothing.
Quote: Don't shove beans up your nose!
Proposed by: RteeeeKed (talk)

Comments The image I had in mind of this was a cropped version of the explosion that appears when you click the link that tells you not to on the beans page. Also, the title of this card would be in comic sans and red. RteeeeKed (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Do It![edit]

Name of card: We Can Do It
Class: Article (good)
Protected: No
Proposed by: RteeeeKed (talk)

Comments

4X[edit]

Name of card: 4X games
Class: Article (good)
Text: Short for Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate. Not to be confused with the Foreign Exchange Market.
Protected: No
Proposed by: RteeeeKed (talk)

Comments Getting some cards for the topics we need more of in. RteeeeKed (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiPuma[edit]

Name of card: WikiPuma
Class: Userbox
Text: Search the Good Deck for a Article card, discard it, and take a card of your choice into your hand. Shuffle afterwards.
Required user access level: Autoconfirmed
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)
Rarity :Rare

Comments

Edit war[edit]

Name of card: Edit war
Class: Vandal
Text: If there is a Good-Class article in play, discard it.
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation[edit]

Name of card: Articles for creation
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Take a Article from the deck to play. On the first turn, this card can't be vandalized.
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident[edit]

Name of card: Seigenthaler incident
Class: Vandalism
Text: All Anonymous users discard all of their hands.
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Teahouse[edit]

Name of card: The Teahouse
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: draw 2 Edit cards and a Editor card.
Protected: Registered
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:In the news[edit]

Name: In the news
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Search the deck for the Article card,reveal it, then put it in play OR your hand.
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Disambiguation[edit]

Name of card: Disambiguation
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: When drawn, discard it and draw two Article cards
Protected: No
Image : Disambig gray CC-BY.svg

Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments Leomk0403 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks like a pitchfork. There is an official icon for disambiguation articles though, how about we use that instead? RteeeeKed (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok this and i thought is an deserted page!

Neptune[edit]

Name of card: Neptune
Class: Article (good)
Text:
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)
Catergory: Space?

Comments

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Name of card: Articles for deletion
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Choose an Article card, then roll the dice. If 6,5,4, remove it from play.
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia: Article wizard[edit]

Name of card: Article wizard
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Search for a Article card, then put it to play.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

WP:GNG[edit]

Name of card: General Notability
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Draw a card. If it's a Stub-class Article card,roll the die. If 1,2,3,4 or 5, it is promoted. If 6, discard it.
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Etiquette[edit]

Name of card: Etiquette
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Draw a User card, then roll the die, if 1,2,3, discard it. Else, keep it in your hand.
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole[edit]

Name of card: Whac-a-mole Wikipedia
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: Remove 4 Articles
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

WP:SPoF[edit]

Name: Shadowless Fists of Death
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: Draw two Wikipedia cards.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

"I would really really appreciate it if people actually bothered to read policy/guideline pages rather than just quoting them like some fighters in an old kung fu movie ("WP:Drunken fists!" "WP:RETAIN!" "WP:Flying mongoose!" "WP:DIACRITICS!" "WP:Shadowless Fist of Death!")" – Volunteer Marek, some time on 5 April 2011.

Picture : File:Steven Ho Martial Arts Kick.jpg

Comments

Wikipedia:Stub[edit]

Name of card: Stub Article
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Stack Wikipedia cards on it. For each card stacked you get 5 cJ. You can only stack one per round.
Protected: NO
Rarity: Legendary potientally Limited due to cJ mining stretegies will heavily use this card.
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Writing better articles[edit]

Name of card: Writing better articles
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: promote a article by one.
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles][edit]

Name of card: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Draw 5 cards
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test[edit]

Name of card: Wikipediholism test
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Roll the die, if 4,5 or 6, improve 1 Article card.
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)
Quote:"If you have a coffee-stained mug with a Wikipedia logo on it, you may be spending too much time on Wikipedia. Why not spend some more time and take this test?"- Anonymous

Comments

Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Name of card: GTA 5
Class: Article (good)
Text: None
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Wikipedia:Typo Team[edit]

Name of card: Typo Team
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: The team that checks for misselligs Misspellings.
Protected: YES OR NO
Quote " If you see any typos (even minor ones), please correct them." - The Typo Team
Picture:

tyop

typo

Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

4chan[edit]

Name of card: 4chan
Class: Article (good)
Text: Play 1 more Article card this turn. If there is no Article card left in your hand, search the deck for one, and put it in play.
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Transformers (film)[edit]

Name of card: Transformers film
Class: After two turns, it will be promoted by one rank.
Protected: YES OR NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

John Lennon[edit]

Name of card: John Lennon
Class: Article (good)
Text: When drawn, this card will be unable to play for the next 2 turns. (bed protest)
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Chrysiridia rhipheus[edit]

Name of card: Madagascan sunset moth
Class: Article (good)
Text: when played, for the second turn no actions can be committed on this card(except vandalism.)
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Caesar cipher[edit]

Name of card: Caesar cipher
Class: Article (good)
Text: R ZOB MJXOQ
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments the text is code Leomk0403 (talk)

Wikipedia Asian Month[edit]

Name of card: Wikipedian Asian Month
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Make an Edit. Then, shuffle the deck, and draw the 5th to 10th lowermost card.
Protected: NO
Quote: 'Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an annual online event that aims to promote Asian content in Wikipedia

- Anonymous

Photo:
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

WP:ANI[edit]

Name of card: Report-a-Incident
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Remove 1 Vandal Card of your choice.
Protected: YES
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

WP:RPP[edit]

Name of card: Requests for page protection
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: Choose one Article card, then roll the die. If 4,5,6, the card is Protected.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

WP:SWB[edit]

Name of card: Semi-Wikibreak
Class: Wikipedia (good)
Text: You can only do one more action this turn. On the next turn, you can do one card in your hand's action without using it.
Protected: no
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

Archimedes[edit]

Name of card: Archimedes
Class: Article (good)
Text: Discard one card, then draw two more.
Protected: semi
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments

User:AntiSpamBot[edit]

Name of card: Antispam bot
Class: Bot (good)
Text: Remove 2 Vandalism cards from play.
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments Hey, we're over 100 cards. Now is the time to stop suggesting cards, and to add comments on already existing cards. RteeeeKed (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRO[edit]

Name of card: Little brother
Class: Vandal
Text: Roll the die. If 3 or 4, draw one Vandal card.
Protected: NO
Proposed by: Leomk0403 (talk)

Comments Please read the comment for the above card suggestion. RteeeeKed (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel like this article would be better as a vandal card (Name would be "My little brother"). RteeeeKed (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiFauna (various)[edit]

Class: Userbox
Protected: Registered

Name of card: Wikipedia:WikiNecromancer
Text: When an article is nominated for deletion, roll a die. If it lands on 1, 2, or 3, apply a constructive edit to that article.

Name of card: Wikipedia:WikiGoose
Text: At any time, you may hold up this card and roll a die. If it lands on 1, 2, or 3, make an edit on 2-3 random articles. You can't use this card again for four turns afterward.

Name of card: Wikipedia:WikiWolf
Text: When reporting a vandal, the cost to block that vandal is now free.

Proposed by: 172.112.210.32 (talk)

Comments

In hindsight, some of these aren't very balanced. Especially the WikiWolf one. I attempted to base the card abilities on the descriptions given on their pages, but I'm not sure about how I ended up doing. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creation process[edit]

Current Process[edit]

Suggested Cards[edit]

Minecraft UBX[edit]

Glitched Bot[edit]

Temptation[edit]

Cookie[edit]

The Wikipedian's Prayer[edit]

Editing Under the Influence[edit]

Dont be dense[edit]

Biography Improvement Drive[edit]

Sourced fact[edit]

Encyclopedic photo[edit]

Sourced revision[edit]

Article Alert Bot[edit]

Inactive WikiProject[edit]

Consensual repeal[edit]

WikiProject Space[edit]

Public Policy Initative[edit]

Malamanteau[edit]

Wikipediholic[edit]

WP:UNBLOCK[edit]

foundation:Donate[edit]

[citation needed][edit]

WP:END[edit]

WP:CRISIS[edit]

WP:IAR[edit]

WP:MoS[edit]

m:DBAD[edit]

Ignore all rules (Alternate proposal)[edit]

WP:TfD[edit]

Template:uw-badcat[edit]

Edit not undo-able[edit]

Beard Must Go[edit]

WP:KC[edit]

WP:*[edit]

WP:BEARDKEEP[edit]

WP:BARNSTAR[edit]

Fake "new messages" bar[edit]

Aglet[edit]

VERB THIS NOUN WITH NOUN THIS NOUN VERB TO[edit]

WP:Redirect[edit]

WP:DISAMBIG[edit]

WP:HATNOTE[edit]

Love Cabal[edit]

Dmitri Shostakovich[edit]

WP:Suitly emphazi[edit]

WP:WG[edit]

Copyright Infringer the Troll[edit]

Olm[edit]

WP:SALT[edit]

Copycat Vandal[edit]

HTML in wikitext[edit]

GNU Project[edit]

Ronald Reagan[edit]

Evolution[edit]

Barack Obama[edit]

Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Protection[edit]

Backups lost[edit]

WikiBreak[edit]

Blocked #1[edit]

REPLACE THIS SARCASTIC LINE WITH SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATE[edit]

Rickroll[edit]

New Pages Patrol[edit]

WP:NOTDONE[edit]

WP:AFC[edit]

WP:SOCK[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide[edit]

Blocked #2[edit]

Minor edit[edit]

Template:User deletionist[edit]

m:SVG fonts[edit]

WP:POT[edit]

Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia[edit]

Citation[edit]

Wikipedia:Editcountitis[edit]

Show preview[edit]

WikiPuma[edit]

ClueBotNG[edit]

^{[citation needed]}[edit]