User talk:Duja/Bridge

Suit Symbols

I have been writing "2 Hearts" instead of "2♥" because I think the four suit symbols in all black are too similar. But others use the suit symbols (and edit mine!) and I agree that consistency is a benefit. Should we use ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣? Or even ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ as in bidding boxes? Those are a pain to type, as well as to read when editing. Do we want to introduce something like {{hearts}}? Matchups 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the colored symbols but they're pain to type indeed, non-colored ones second (I find text more difficult to parse). At that time, I was told that creating {{hearts}} etc. was a bad idea, as it would increase the server load needed to associate the numerous templates with the hosting articles. A lot was changed in the meantime with Wikisoftware, though, so that might not be an issue anymore. I'll check out again what to do about it and let you know. Duja 21:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also Playing card#Playing card symbols in Unicode. I think I'd most prefer the "white diamonds" and "white hearts" as in books, but that could be the greatest job of all to convert to. I'm not sure what to do... Duja 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the option of {{subst:hearts}}, which reduces the typing from 29 to 16 characters and doesn't hurt the server. Or just use &spades; and get a bot to add the colors later. Or could we modify our monobook.js files so that these characters were included in the special character insert box at the bottom of the edit page? But either way, it makes it hard to read when editing. If we do colored symbols, would you go for four or two colors? BTW. the white symbols don't display on my browser. Matchups 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :-). Let's wait for a while and see :-).

WikiAdmin

No comments for a while on the stubs. What next? Should there be a WikiProject? Matchups 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I get it, WikiProject is not a big deal per se. IOW, Cambion, Andrea, you and me already are a kind of "WikiProject bridge", even if not officially declared as such. Duja

Advantages, as I see it, of an official WP:

We have a real namespace instead of being in userspace
We may be taken more seriously (even by me)
We can troll for more people to help
We get to put cute flags on work in progress pages

Matchups

I believe the folks at WP:WSS just wait for the outcome, but our goal is not to write the stubs, but full articles, isn't it? Duja

Yes, but so long as I'm just writing stubs, I can deny that I'm actually wasting a significant amount of time on this. &smiley; Matchups

Should I volunteer to be the coordinator of "WikiProject bridge"? I dunno; I'm already involved in Wikipedia more than I'd wanted to, plus my Wikiinterests got spread too much. Maybe... Duja 01:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it, per previous comment. Should we ask Andrea and Cambion, or look at who's edited other bridge pages? Matchups 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed moving all bridge stubs from card-game-stub to bridge-game-stub. There are 53 entries in the latter. Now all we need is to create seven more and we'll be "legal!" Matchups 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

I'm wondering what we should do about books and authors. Should S. J. Simon and David Bird be considered "players?" Should famous books like Right Through the Pack have their own entries? What about fictional players, like Secretary Bird, the Unlucky Expert, and Chthonic? Matchups 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions; I have awfully little time to devote to Wikipedia these days. If we have a sufficient number of authors (around 5 or so), we can create Category:Bridge authors or something. Reese and Kaplan should definitely go there also, for example. Books can also have their own category, on the same principle. (We shouldn't forget Hugh Kelsey and Géza Ottlik -- did you read "Adventures in Card Play"?). Duja 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]