Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[greatexpectations]

This seems like a decent structural template that can be used for families of cards (cursers, villages, terminal draw, etc.)—a short paragraph on general strategic points common to the card family; a list of the cards grouped by subtype; and then general trivia about the category.

i like it. i meant to do that sort of thing with the villages page but then got distracted and never came back.

I posted a few other things on the Main Page talk, but I'm not sure if they were seen, and maybe this is the right place to discuss them.

yeah i think we should try to keep more of the discussion here. i think its too hard to get lost on the shuffle over there, and it will get seen by more eyes.

and more eyes is what we need. we've had a solid core to generate the bulk of the content so far, but it would be great to have a lot more folk tearing through the articles (like they pick apart meme posts or puzzles) to nitpick and add details.

[Schneau]

One thing that would certainly add more eyes is adding more editors. Now all the cards are added, and the main page is shaping up (but still needs some work). It seems like we're getting close to being ready for theory to publicize the wiki on the blog. Should we shoot for sometime in the next week to get it to a place where it's ready for prime time?

[greatexpectations]

One thing that would certainly add more eyes is adding more editors. Now all the cards are added, and the main page is shaping up (but still needs some work). It seems like we're getting close to being ready for theory to publicize the wiki on the blog. Should we shoot for sometime in the next week to get it to a place where it's ready for prime time?

with more editors we will also need to keep an eye on what is going on too. i don't expect much (any?) outright vandalism, but you want to keep the overall quality of content high. i'm thinking of this xkcd strip. don't necessarily want lists of dominion irl or dozens of linked games.

so before we give theory an ok to go 'prime time' we might want to generate some solid posting guidelines. and as part of that we might want to really flesh out a few more pages as solid examples. so maybe a couple card pages, a combo page, a card type (curser, village, etc.) page, an expansion page, whatever.

[() | (_) ^/]

Anyone else read an section of an article on the wiki and feel the urge to click in the upper right of the section to give it a +1 only to be denied?

It keeps happening to me.

[greatexpectations]

Anyone else read an section of an article on the wiki and feel the urge to click in the upper right of the section to give it a +1 only to be denied?

It keeps happening to me.

haha totally. and every time i see someone blitzing through adding tons of content i want to throw piles of +1's at them.

[() | (_) ^/]

One thing that would certainly add more eyes is adding more editors. Now all the cards are added, and the main page is shaping up (but still needs some work). It seems like we're getting close to being ready for theory to publicize the wiki on the blog. Should we shoot for sometime in the next week to get it to a place where it's ready for prime time?

Also let's not publicize until at least every card is done?  Just a thought, not necessary I guess.

[greatexpectations]

Also let's not publicize until at least every card is done?  Just a thought, not necessary I guess.

the trouble is that 'done' is very hard to quantify on a wiki. i am pretty sure we now at least have pages for every card, they are just at drastically varying levels of completion. tactician looks friggin good, but a couple of the hinterlands cards are pretty bare.

[() | (_) ^/]

Also let's not publicize until at least every card is done?  Just a thought, not necessary I guess.

the trouble is that 'done' is very hard to quantify on a wiki. i am pretty sure we now at least have pages for every card, they are just at drastically varying levels of completion. tactician looks friggin good, but a couple of the hinterlands cards are pretty bare.

Yes, I understand.  I should specify: by 'done' I mean 'has some minimum standard of content completeness as set by those who are quite active in adding content/formatting to the wiki' (of whom I am not one).

TBH, I have done very little (one edit) and have little-to-no motivation to learn how to do much more than grammatical review.  So I picked a card at random to look at.  Then I saw the posting about "let's publish soonish maybe" and thought I'd say something.

I guess I stumbled upon one of the hinterlands ones that are bare.

[greatexpectations]

Yes, I understand.  I should specify: by 'done' I mean 'has some minimum standard of content completeness as set by those who are quite active in adding content/formatting to the wiki' (of whom I am not one).

TBH, I have done very little (one edit) and have little-to-no motivation to learn how to do much more than grammatical review.  So I picked a card at random to look at.  Then I saw the posting about "let's publish soonish maybe" and thought I'd say something.

I guess I stumbled upon one of the hinterlands ones that are bare.

yup, wasn't trying to pick on you there. it's just hard to tell where we should draw that line. and yeah, except for tunnel i dont think any of the hinterlands cards even had a page until earlier today. hinterlands is still going to be a bit thin, but the other expansions should be doing a bit better by now.

[AJD]

I just threw together <a href="http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Vanilla">this page on vanilla cards</a>. Not sure how worthwhile that was, I guess. But I bet something could be done with it to make it more useful?

[thirtyseven]

Just added intros to the $2 base set cards... help with the rest would be appreciated.

[greatexpectations]

loving the card types page ajd. can we add unofficial subtypes (curser, village, gainer, etc) to that page or should it go elsewhere?

[Qvist]

loving the card types page ajd. can we add unofficial subtypes (curser, village, gainer, etc) to that page or should it go elsewhere?

That should go elsewhere. There should be a page called "Card Categories" or something like that. It should contain Curser, Village, Gainer, Sifter, etc and explain them short and then link to the respective detailed Article (Curser already exists for example).

[AJD]

loving the card types page ajd. can we add unofficial subtypes (curser, village, gainer, etc) to that page or should it go elsewhere?

Thanks! And I agree with Qvist that categories like "curser" and "village" should have a separate index.

[greatexpectations]

That should go elsewhere. There should be a page called "Card Categories" or something like that.

sounds good to me. is card categories ok with everyone? we might as well get that going too. regardless of what we name it we just need to clarify that they are community/player defined categories. i am sure we will see some disagreements on what will technically count as these categories.

and this might be a big pain, but we should probably consider adding these categories to the navbox thing on the card's page.

It should contain Curser, Village, Gainer, Sifter, etc and explain them short and then link to the respective detailed Article (Curser already exists for example).

i know we have pages/stubs for village, curser, and cantrip. what else is out there? disappearing village, terminal draw, draw to x, trasher, tfb, terminal silver, hand reducing attack, non terminal draw. anything else?

and props to qvist for backing me up and filling in dark ages cards. i still haven't played with them or even looked at them. pretty much all i know about them i've learned from editing the wiki.

[AJD]

i know we have pages/stubs for village, curser, and cantrip. what else is out there? disappearing village, terminal draw, draw to x, trasher, tfb, terminal silver, hand reducing attack, non terminal draw. anything else?

Disappearing village is a subtype of village. I'm not sure if we want to consider "remodeler" as a subtype of tfb or not; probably, I guess.

[greatexpectations]

Disappearing village is a subtype of village. I'm not sure if we want to consider "remodeler" as a subtype of tfb or not; probably, I guess.

true. so do we make a page for say disappearing villages, but also mention it on the village subtype page?

or just keep the larger groupings and break it out into all the different subheadings on that page? ie include remodeler, tfb, whatever on a general trasher page. then discard attacks, cursers, etc on a general attack page. that sort of thing.

[michaeljb]

Disappearing village is a subtype of village. I'm not sure if we want to consider "remodeler" as a subtype of tfb or not; probably, I guess.

true. so do we make a page for say disappearing villages, but also mention it on the village subtype page?

or just keep the larger groupings and break it out into all the different subheadings on that page? ie include remodeler, tfb, whatever on a general trasher page. then discard attacks, cursers, etc on a general attack page. that sort of thing.

I like how the vanilla page has the "semi-vanilla" section, and I think a similar thing should be fine for village subtypes. I'm not sure the best way to categorize "remodelers" in light of other TFBs though.

**

Since the Secret Histories all have some introductory part on the set as a whole, I've added them to a few pages, including the newly created Seaside and Alchemy pages. Mainly I wanted to say here that I was quite impressed with how long the Alchemy Secret History was.

Also, to add on to the coin symbol idea, I think a proper Potion symbol would also be nice.

**

Prosperity's "other secret history" doesn't really have a section about the set as a whole, and the original version is way different from the other ones, and I feel like it's too much to just copy all that text over, so for now I just put a link on the wiki page. Thoughts?

edit: triple post into one

[DStu]

X-post from http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Talk:Main_Page#Direct_Quotes concerning the Quota-template:

At the moment, the template for the source is used like "|Source= http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=153.0 from The Secret History of the Dominion Promos", where the "from" is kind of artificial. I think it should move to the template. Or even the second part "The Secret History of the Dominion Promos" should get an own entry. Changes on the pages should be botable. Any thoughts? DStu (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (EST)

[Schneau]

X-post from http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Talk:Main_Page#Direct_Quotes concerning the Quota-template:

At the moment, the template for the source is used like "|Source= http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=153.0 from The Secret History of the Dominion Promos", where the "from" is kind of artificial. I think it should move to the template. Or even the second part "The Secret History of the Dominion Promos" should get an own entry. Changes on the pages should be botable. Any thoughts? DStu (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (EST)

I added the "from" in one of my first edits, and now I'm wondering if we even need it. I think better might be something like "Donald X. Vaccarino, The Secret History of The Dominion Wiki". Because of the italics, it is clear enough that the second part is where the quote was found, and seems more like how citations are usually done. So, I'd be all for removing "from" from each quote citation and replacing it with a comma (which should probably be in the template and not part of the link text). Or, if people like "from", it could go to the template and not be part of the link. But, I think we can get rid of it.

[Schneau]

i know we have pages/stubs for village, curser, and cantrip. what else is out there? disappearing village, terminal draw, draw to x, trasher, tfb, terminal silver, hand reducing attack, non terminal draw. anything else?

There are other things like junker (junking?) attack, Peddler variant, alt treasure, alt victory, multi-type, etc. I'm sure this isn't a complete list, but we can add to it as we go. The mini-set challenges used a lot of these, and could be used as a source of ideas for these sub-types.

[AJD]

Disappearing village is a subtype of village. I'm not sure if we want to consider "remodeler" as a subtype of tfb or not; probably, I guess.

true. so do we make a page for say disappearing villages, but also mention it on the village subtype page?

or just keep the larger groupings and break it out into all the different subheadings on that page? ie include remodeler, tfb, whatever on a general trasher page. then discard attacks, cursers, etc on a general attack page. that sort of thing.

I like how the vanilla page has the "semi-vanilla" section, and I think a similar thing should be fine for village subtypes. I'm not sure the best way to categorize "remodelers" in light of other TFBs though.

true. so do we make a page for say disappearing villages, but also mention it on the village subtype page?

I think we can do this on a case-by-case basis depending on what feels right. I mean, like, I don't feel like "disappearing village" is itself a main class of cards; it's just a subtype of villages that doesn't need its own index. But I do think "curser" is a main class, just based on how we talk about cards and what their roles are.

[thirtyseven]

I say only make a page if there's actually enough information available to make a decent sized (non-stub) article, at least eventually. This is obviously not the only criteria for an article, but useful for possibly dissuading someone from starting an article like that. Often a subsection of another article is the right choice.

On a separate note, check this thread on the Wiki page for ideas I had about Main Page content; would love input.

Also, article idea: First and second player advantage.

[DStu]

X-post from http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Talk:Main_Page#Direct_Quotes concerning the Quota-template:

At the moment, the template for the source is used like "|Source= http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=153.0 from The Secret History of the Dominion Promos", where the "from" is kind of artificial. I think it should move to the template. Or even the second part "The Secret History of the Dominion Promos" should get an own entry. Changes on the pages should be botable. Any thoughts? DStu (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (EST)

I added the "from" in one of my first edits, and now I'm wondering if we even need it. I think better might be something like "Donald X. Vaccarino, The Secret History of The Dominion Wiki". Because of the italics, it is clear enough that the second part is where the quote was found, and seems more like how citations are usually done. So, I'd be all for removing "from" from each quote citation and replacing it with a comma (which should probably be in the template and not part of the link text). Or, if people like "from", it could go to the template and not be part of the link. But, I think we can get rid of it.

I'm changing it...

edit: Done (I think). If something is missing, notify me.

[werothegreat]

I expanded the article on cursers:

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Curser

This seems like a decent structural template that can be used for families of cards (cursers, villages, terminal draw, etc.)—a short paragraph on general strategic points common to the card family; a list of the cards grouped by subtype; and then general trivia about the category.

For the theme section: "While Dark Ages does not have any Cursers, the Looters carry the expansion's subthemes instead: Death Cart trashes, Marauder gives out Spoils, and Cultist does something when trashed."