Wikipedia:Trading card game/Rules

Rules

You may view archives of proposals that were approved or overruled.

Equipment

• Two regulation-compliant decks per player
• One user card per player
• Vandalism counters
• Rank counters
• Bot edit counters
• Additional counters (recommended)
• Small sticky notes and writing utensil (recommended)
• Pad for keeping track of centijimbos

Object

Promote 8 articles to featured status and purge Wikipedia of its vandalism before your opponents can and also before Wikipedia becomes hopelessly vandalized. What

Setup

Each player prepares two decks-- a "good" deck and a "bad" deck. The good deck contains cards which could benefit Wikipedia in one fashion or another. The bad deck contains cards which are detrimental to Wikipedia. The good decks are used to build the player's hand of cards. The bad decks are used to generate random bad events by flipping over the top card. Both the good card deck and bad card deck are expandable so long as the deck meets regulatory standards.

Players remove an article card without special text from their own good deck and place it in play. Each player should shuffle both decks of the player to their right and return them once finished. Players then draw six cards from their good card deck to form a hand.

Additionally, players should put into play a user card to represent themselves. This card does not count toward the deck totals. The user card contains special text that gives the player some expertise in one or more areas or may give the player some other virtue. It is a good idea to build good and bad decks which complement the user card you play with.

Playing spaces

The playing space is set up as follows: Each player will have his "GOOD" deck to his left and his "BAD" deck to his right, with the respective discards for each pile adjacent to them. Each player's "in play" space is divided into the Wikipedia space (for policy cards), the User space (for vandals, bots, and miscellaneous cards relating to the player). The Main space (for article cards) is a common area in the center of the playing space (also considered "in play"). Article cards in the Main space may be played on by any player. When an action card is played, it is usually discarded immediately, though there may be exceptions.

Play

Decide who will go first. Play passes to the left.

On your turn

The turn has several phases:

• Draw phase: Replenish your hand to six cards by drawing from the good card deck until you have at least six cards.
• Vandalism phase: While you were sleeping, the vandals struck again. For each bot in play, starting with yours and moving in a clockwise fashion, execute the malicious instructions. Next, for each vandal in your userspace, follow its special instructions. This will most likely cause more cards to be played from the bad deck, and each of these should be played in the order they are drawn. Follow any new special text immediately, but ignore for now any requests by the new cards for more bad cards to be drawn, lest infinite recursion happen.
• Maintenance phase: If any non-vandal cards with scheduled actions (such as bots) are in play, perform the actions stated on those cards, beginning with yours and rotating in a clockwise fashion until all such cards have completed their scheduled actions. If on your last turn you reported anything, it is now discarded along with any sacrificial edits you played to report it.
• Creation phase: You may play new articles, Wikipedia cards, and userboxes.
• Action phase: You may play edit cards and perform anti-vandalism actions. After each card you play (except sacrificial edits), turn over a card from your bad deck. Vandals are placed into your userspace and their special text takes effect immediately. Vandalism cards are played immediately, so long as there is at least one vandal in play capable of performing the vandalism (indicated by a symbol on the vandalism card). Bad Wikipedia cards are placed into your Wikipedia space and their text takes effect immediately. All cards played during the vandalism stage take effect in the order they were drawn. Once the bad card is played and its special text is followed, you may perform another edit/action, repeating the cycle until you are finished, but always ending on a bad card.

When an event or action card is used, it is discarded and is placed into its respective (good or bad) discard pile. Once the draw pile corresponding to that pile runs out, the pile is turned over and reshuffled as the new draw pile. If a special instruction calls for a player to "remove a card from play" or place a card "out of play", the card should be set aside, not to be used again during the current game.

If you are restrained from further edits, you may not play any cards (including instants) on any player's turn, including your own. An exception to this rule would be a "block appeal"-type card. For the purposes of blocking and editing restraints of any sort, a full round makes up the duration from whenever the restraint goes into effect until just prior to your next turn.

Game outcomes

Collective loss

If at the end of your turn there are five or more bad cards in play, the game has reached a serious state of vandalism. The serious state of vandalism ends if a player is able to finish a turn with four or fewer bad cards in play. If the serious state of vandalism continues until the beginning of next turn of the player who left it in that condition originally, the game is over and all players lose the game.

If at any time during the game a drawpile is depleted, the appropriate discard pile should be turned over and reshuffled. Alternatively, if players agree in advance to do so, a deckout rule may be added for a faster and more challenging game. With the deckout rule, the game is lost by all players if any drawpile in the game is empty at the beginning of any player's turn. If the deckout rule is not agreed upon in advance, players should assume the former rule.

Individual win

The first player to promote a personal total of 8 articles to featured status and clean up all vandalism on all featured articles wins.

Types of cards

Good cards (good deck, these are played from the player's hand):

• Article - the hub of the game, article cards can be promoted to higher quality levels and eventually become featured, earning the player points. Examples: Battle Hymn of the Republic, Bengal tiger
• Edit - action cards, may be used for improving articles or performing a variety of other actions, including granting rights or banning. Edit cards may also be sacrificed for certain anti-vandalism techniques. See Sacrificing an edit card. When an edit card is played on an article, that article receives a counter and advances in rank. See the table for scoring. Examples: Banned indefinitely, Promote article
• Userbox - these cards provide some special ability for a player. Examples: Bot approval group, WikiOtter
• Wikipedia - special rare cards that alter the rules of the game for the better. Examples: RfA, WikiProject Tree of Life
• Instant - special action cards that can be played at any time, designed to interrupt negative actions. Useful for helping others tackle pivotal disasters in the game. Examples: RSS Feed, Server crash
• Bot - cards that perform a scheduled edit on every player's turn, helping automate the editing process and also helping accumulate centijimbos (cJ) faster.

Bad cards (disaster deck, these are played as soon as they are turned over)

• Article - articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia (preferably, titles that are watched on the real Wikipedia). Examples: Difference between engineering and technology, Not A Clue
• Vandal - Evil entities which are capable of performing various edits. Examples: WikiJaguar, Meatpuppet
• Vandalism - action cards used for degrading the quality of good articles. When played on an article, the article receives a vandalism counter. The article may not be improved until all vandalism counters are cleared from the card. Examples: Page blanking, Intentional fallacies
• Discord - Non-vandalous actions can also be detrimental to Wikipedia. These cards have a wide range of possibilities, often affecting multiple players at once. Examples: Deleting the Main Page, Village Stocks
• Bot - Certain bots don't improve Wikipedia. Usually these look like good ideas, but simply aren't for various reasons. Examples: WelcomeBot, EditCountBot
• Wikipedia - malformed policies or projects which disrupt the game with rules that hurt the Wiki. Examples: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, WikiProject Vandalize

Edit cards

On your turn, you may play an edit card from your hand if you have the appropriate user access level to do so and only if that article has no vandalism. Edit cards can take many forms, and it would be impossible to list all types here. Here are a few types:

• Protection cards: Played on any article in play. The article receiving the edit is granted the said level of protection. This card is not discarded unless protection is removed from the article.
• Stats-altering cards: Played on a good user or good article in play. The user/article receiving the edit has its stats altered until the beginning of the next turn, when the card is discarded.
• Policing cards: Played on a bad card in play. The card receiving the edit is treated according to special text on the card.

As soon as the card is played, follow any instructions on the card.

Sacrificing an edit card

Just like in real life, you may sacrifice valuable resources that could otherwise have been spent performing a constructive edit by performing anti-vandalism measures.

In order to sacrifice an edit card, you must have the appropriate access level normally required for the card you wish to sacrifice. Play the edit card on the bad card you are addressing. Special text on the edit card is ignored during a sacrifice. Also, unlike other actions, sacrificial edits do not require you to turn over any bad cards.

Here is a list of sacrifices you may make:

Any player:

• Report vandalism (1 edit card) - Discarded at the beginning of your next turn.
• Report a vandal, bot (1 edit card) - Discarded at the beginning of your next turn.
• Nominate an article or Wikipedia card for deletion (1 edit card) - Discarded at the beginning of your next turn.
• Revert a single vandalism (1 edit card) - Discarded immediately.
• Revert all vandalism on an article (1 edit card per vandalism) - Discarded immediately.

Rollbacker:

• Revert all vandalism on an article (1 edit card) - Discarded immediately.

Administrator:

• Block a vandal or bot (1 edit card) - Discarded immediately.
• Delete an article (1 edit card) - Discarded immediately.
• Prevent an article or vandal (5 edit cards) - Removed from play immediately before special text takes effect.

Jimbo:

• Delete a Wikipedia card (1 edit card) - Discarded immediately.
• Prevent a Wikipedia card (5 edit cards) - Removed from play immediately before special text takes effect.

Instant cards

An instant card may be played at any time during the game, even interrupting another player's actions. The instant functions the same as an edit card except that it can be played at any time. Following the instant effect, the card is instantly discarded.

Bad cards

At the beginning of each turn, perform the following:

• Follow instructions on all bad bots in your userspace, then bad bots in the userspace of the player to your left, continuing counterclockwise until all bad bots have performed their duties. Any bad cards called into play by the bots take effect immediately, but ignore any instructions on the freshly played bad cards for more bad cards to be drawn.

• Follow the same procedure with all vandals in play.

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

Vandals

Vandals are placed into your userspace. Vandals sport a special text instruction that comes into play immediately. Some vandals may cause more bad cards to be turned over; some may require extra sacrifices; the possibilities are endless. Many vandals will require vandalism phase maintenance at the beginning of each turn or certain turns. If during the vandalism phase a vandal causes a card to be turned over from the bad card deck, the new card's text is followed immediately, except for any requests for more bad cards to be drawn.

Vandalism

Vandalism works like the opposite of an Edit card. Unless otherwise specified, distribute a vandalism counter to the appropriate article. The method for determining which article to vandalize has not been finalized yet. Follow any special text on the card, and then discard it.

Vandalism on an article prevents it from receiving any positive edits until all vandalism is cleared from that article.

Discord

Occasionally, bad things happen that were not of vandalous origin. Things like the servers experiencing an outage can happen. When a discord card is played, follow its text, and discard it when finished.

Bad bot

A bot is a supervandal. Bots are capable of producing massive amounts of edits in a short period of time. As such, a poorly programmed bot can wreak havoc quickly on an array of articles. Most bad bots will require one or more vandalism counters to be distributed at the beginning of each turn to articles.

Bad policy

A bad policy functions much like a discord card, except that it remains in play until deleted.

Bad articles

A bad article is one that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. These cards go into the article space and stay there until they are deleted. These articles may not receive vandal counters.

Earning centijimbos (cJ)

In order to earn higher user access levels, you must collect centijimbos (cJ). You earn cJ each time you play a constructive edit card (including instants) on a good article. This is the only way to earn cJ, and it is impossible to lose them. Centijimbos should be tracked using a scorepad.

This chart will help determine how many cJ are earned for each edit. The number corresponds to the level of the article, kept track of with edit counters (bot edit counters should be divided by five before adding to normal edit counters):

• 0 = "stub" class: 1 cJ
• 1 = "start" class: 2 cJ
• 2 = "C" class: 4 cJ
• 3 = "B" class: 6 cJ
• 4 = GA class: 8 cJ
• 5 = "A" class: 10 cJ
• 6 = FA class: 15 cJ

User access levels

The following is a list of user access levels, in the order that you can get them, with the amount of centijimbos needed. You do not spend the cJ to get the rank; instead, you get the correct amount of cJ, which then gives you the ability to play a card that upgrades your user card.

• Anonymous (0 cJ): May edit, revert individual levels of vandalism, and report.
• Registered (10 cJ): May create articles.
• Auto-confirmed (25 cJ): May edit protected articles, and create articles and policies.
• Rollback (50 cJ): May rollback all vandalism.
• Administrator (100 cJ): May block vandals, delete articles, prevent articles, and prevent vandals, and block bots.
• Bureaucrat (200 cJ): May create bots.
• Jimbo! (300 cJ): May delete Wikipedia cards and prevent Wikipedia cards.

It is possible to win as an anonymous user, but it is extremely difficult.

Deck-building regulations

Certain rules apply when adding or removing cards from your playing decks. In order to play in tournaments, decks must meet the following conditions (recommended for normal gameplay as well):

• The number of cards in the good deck must equal the number of cards in the bad deck. Both decks must consist of at least 50 cards each.
• Only one of any particular instant card is allowed (e.g. "Thank you"). If the deck is 100 or more cards, a duplicate instant is allowed. For 150 or more cards, a third, etc. (For every 50 cards, one instant is allowed.)
• Only one of any particular Wikipedia card per deck (e.g. "WikiProject Chemistry").
• Only one of any card with a unique proper name per deck (e.g. "Bill the Troll").
• If a card features a star icon with a number inside the star, then the number of times that card may appear in your deck may not exceed that number.
• The good deck must have at least one article with no special text (to be used for initiating the game). This card counts toward the total number of cards for the good deck.
• The following should help calculate the number of article cards each deck should contain:

• 50-53 cards: 8 article cards
• 54-59 cards: 9 article cards
• 60-65 cards: 10 article cards

(To calculate how many article cards a deck should contain, divide it by 6 and ignore the remainder. This applies to both the good deck and the bad deck.)

• All cards must completely and successfully undergo the complete approval process and be issued by the Wikipedia trading card game developers. While the players of a private game have the say as to whether a card counts, tournament rules will require each card be genuinely issued from the developers and not fabricated by an alternate party. However, remember that since this is a trading card game anyone can develop, you can join the team!

Proposed amendments

Click here to propose an amendment.

Precedence of target articles

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

Rule: So far, no rule has been established as to what article should be targeted by a vandalism. Here is one of several possible proposals.

Vandalism is targeted at the highest-profile article; that is, the article with the highest class rating. The second vandalism on a player's turn goes to the second-highest, third to the third-highest, and so forth, looping back to the highest if vandalisms outnumber the articles.

If a vandalism card specifies what to vandalize, then break the loop, and the next article to be vandalized is whichever one would have been next. This may be the same article that was specified, meaning that an article could be vandalized twice in a row.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Do we need to place vandalism cards on specific articles? That would only be necessary if articles cannot be upgraded while vandalised. I didn't see that anywhere in the rules; I'll propose it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the idea was originally that a vandalism card is either played on an article or just affects the gameplay in general; however, I'm seeing lots of proposals that don't really quite fit the "vandalism" category-- perhaps it would be a good idea to distinguish between the two. I'll set that proposal up while I'm thinking about it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As I glaze over this with a fresh mindset, it would make sense (if this rule is adopted) to adjust the winning conditions to specify that no featured articles may hold vandalism. In fact, I'll propose that elsewhere now. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion requires further comment, as figuring this out is mandatory in order for the game to be coherent. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal; I can't see any better option. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll close this discussion (as well as most of the discussions below) in one week since they've finally received a yay/nay. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That rule change might actually serve to balance the game, since the player winning (i.e., with high-class articles) would be targeted more. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Identical cards

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

Dependencies: None.

When building a deck and during play, cards are identical if ALL of the following are true:

• The image is the same.
• All text on the article is exactly the same, including spelling, wording, title, and numbers.
• The prerequisites for the card (if any) match.

The following parts of a card should be ignored when comparing cards to see if they are identical:

• Any symbols that indicate the original deck, expansion, or series the card was released as a part of.
• The size, typeface, style, spacing, kerning, and other attributes of the text.
• Age or physical condition of the card, including anything that may have been scratched off the card or written on the card.

This provides a loophole by which multiple instances of the "same" Wikipedia card or instant card may appear in the deck without breaking any rules, provided the card has been released in multiple versions.

Comments

So... Does this mean we can't use identical cards at all (other than your loophole)? That is what your last sentence seems to indicate. I don't like that idea, as I somewhat said above. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No-- this rule adds no restrictions to the game; it does quite the opposite. All this proposal does is provide a loophole for the deck-building and in-play restrictions. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add another manner in which two cards may be compared for being "identical": Icons appearing in the top corner. Sorry for missing that earlier. This provides coverage for the protection level and for the star icon which is mentioned in the newly approved amendment. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this. If a card changes design, then that would make two cards different. This would also cause problems with things like manufacturing errors or typos. I think the only thing that should decide if two cards are identical is the title. RteeeeKed (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Exchanging a card

• Rule: You may sacrifice together the creation and action phases of your turn to exchange up to three cards from you hand. To exchange a card, discard it and draw a new card. For each card exchanged, turn over one bad card as well.
• Dependencies: None known.
• Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Comments We've all gotten into the predicament where we've got the most worthless hand in the world. This additional rule permits the user to escape a little less-than-gracefully from that situation. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we still have a "too many bad cards means everyone loses" rule, this rule is broken since this rule can allow a player who has no hope of winning to screw over his almost-victorious opponents. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing eye-to-eye with you here...mind providing an example of what you're talking about? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed (wrongly, it appears) that a fixed number of bad cards would end the game... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are ≥5 bad cards in play for one full round, then the game ends, so what you said could still apply, potentially. However, I can't think of a way to counteract that, but seeing as that would be rare, and I like the idea, I support. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or we could do what Magic: the Gathering did, and drw one less card if replacing entire hand. Or put a limit on cards exchanged.--CanvasHat 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration cards

• Rule: I've notices that this game can be played single player, and that the player's don't have significant influence on each other. Therefore I propose collaboration cards, that, while giving a benefit to the player, also give a benefit to the opponent. An example would be a card that removes vandal cards on your opponents side, or makes a constructive edit on there article, which gives the user cJ or something. Also, a user could give the opponent a vandal fron their side.

I porpose that all cards that can be used as instants, and contain interaction with the opponent be collab

• Dependencies: REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL IMPLICATIONS THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NEED WORKED OUT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK
• Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments

I'm not sure we need to adopt a new class of cards, but I do agree that we need some cards that have abilities which apply to all players. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do articles belong to a player, or are they just out in the pool when they are played? With what you said, it sounds like people "own" articles, which totally destroys the need to collaborate. If anyone can play on any, and vandalism is put on any, then this becomes not quite as needed. I was under the impression that as long as you are the one to upgrade an article to FA, you get the credit. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Humanity doesn't get a feel for how complexthe rules r, when we write them. We need more set rules that are clears... --CanvasHat 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ithoght they were different wikimedia projects--CanvasHat 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi-- it's as you thought-- articles get put into a general pool where everyone may edit them; credit goes directly to any editor who operates on it (and, if the WikiProject thing that's currently up goes through, WikiProject-induced edits will generate no credit for any players yet advance the article forward with no particular player being the "one who earned it", since technically the edit would have been performed by someone other than the players). As far as which players are affected by different cards, some cards refer to "at the beginning of your turn" and others "on each player's turn", and there are other variations as well. Rather than a rule proposal, this looks like a callout for more cards of the second variety I just mentioned-- cards that recognize there are more than one player. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to introduce a new class of cards; we can just have cards in other classes that involve multiple players. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Priority

• Rule: In real life, vandals don't attack articles that they don't know exist. Thherefore, I propose Priority

A scale that goes up to eleven, Articles with higher priorities get vandalized most. Sophisticated vandals may attack low priority pages, or others, but the 'common' vandal will attack a 7 over a 3.

• Dependencies: REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL IMPLICATIONS THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NEED WORKED OUT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK
• Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments That's an interesting idea. Rather than a ten point scale, perhaps low, medium, and high are appropriate. I'd like to hear what others have to say on this idea since I have mixed feelings about whether this is a good idea. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or High, Medium and Low as well as Up to Eleven and Most Watched Pages--CanvasHat 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I prefer the proposal you made for determining which articles would be vandalized; giving articles any sort of "rating" like this could be taken badly. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Most watched pages?--CanvasHat 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Colour-Coded Subject for Article Cards

• Rule: Each Article card is colour-coded based on subject, and having created 3 or more articles with the same colour gives additional centijimbos.
• Dependencies: Each card would require a colour tab based on the subject: Culture and the arts, Geography and places, Health and fitness, History and events, Mathematics and logic, Natural and physical sciences, People and self, Philosphy and thinking, Religion and belief systems, Society and social sciences, Technology and applied sciences.
• Proposed by: TheSignPainter97 (talk)

Comments

Only issue I see with this is that it's often difficult to categorize an article, but this can definitely be done. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But then the card proposal will have to include a category for the articles...and the colour must be decided, especially to not cause too much confusion, I don't mind helping to sort out the categories. - TheSignPainter97 (talk)

On a note of practicality, keep in mind that the word "category" (used interchangeably with "related to") is already being used in the game for another purpose. It might be helpful to use a unique name for this attribute. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not Portals? TheSignPainter97 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a complete aspect of the game that hasn't been developed. Give it some thought and I'd like to hear that proposal. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Portals?-CanvasHat 18:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh... I see how this could work, without messing with cJs. Wait no, we already have Projects.--CanvasHat 19:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I DO NOT want centijimbos to be messed with. Period. Since that seems to be the only thing giving this proposal a point, and I am against it, I don't think that this is worth doing. In addition, there are no color-coded tabs in Wikipedia articles; we want these to look like actual articles, as much as we can, so adding in colored tabs would seriously take away from that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) wait a minute, where will the psychedelic frogfish go? Leomk0403 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) how about Catergories?

Rename “Jimbo” and “centijimbos”

• Proposal: Find a better name for “Jimbo” and “centijimbos”.
• Proposed by: Timwi (talk)

Problems I see with the names:

• It makes no sense to “be Jimbo” as a Wikipedian. You can’t “become Jimbo” by accruing experience or community standing.
• The term “centi-something” only makes sense if it’s a hundredth of the same something.

I don’t necessarily assert that I have good ideas for better names; however:

• On real Wikipedia, the stage above Administrator is called Bureaucrat.
• On real Wikipedia, we have barnstars and WikiLove.

That’s my 2 edits, anyway. Timwi (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm...... Then Jimbo to "Founder" (legit user right)"?Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 09:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How about, "WikiTokens"? I really don't know but it should probably be something generic to Wikipedia. Hmm.... Urban Versis 32 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Demotivation

• Rule: Certain bad cards can demotivate an editor (player) for a certain number of turns where they would not be able to edit articles. Other cards should help prevent this.
• Dependencies: None that I can think of.
• Proposed by: Nutster (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In real life, editors sometimes lose their enthusiasm for keeping articles up-to-date and correct. Sometimes other elements of life (job, family, etc.) get in the way. Demotivation would cover this kind of things. A player who has been demotivated will not edit articles, but may perform other activities that are normal for their turn. Might this be considered related to WikiDeath?

Good cards: barnstars: Give a barnstar to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: There are several possibilities, but I like: . Other barnstars could work here as well.

WikiLove: Show your WikiLove to another player to remove one demotivation from that player. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image:

Free Time: You have managed to free up some time and energy to work on articles. Remove one demotivation markers from your player card. If all demotivations are removed, then the player can edit again. Image: An analogue clock showing 10 o'clock.

Bad cards:

Instant:

Demotivate: Play this card on any player to demotivate that player. A player who has been demotivated will not upgrade any articles. Quote: "Why bother?" Image is a man sitting at a desk beside a computer with his head in his hands.

Family Gets in the Way: Sometimes other things get in the way of getting articles edited. Play this card on the player on your right to demotivate that player. Image: A frazzled-looking woman standing with a crying baby in one arm, trying to use a vacuum cleaner with the other, with a little boy tugging on her skirt on the side away from the vacuum cleaner and a dog barking at the vacuum. Her facial-expression is a step away from breaking down to cry. Quote: "Why me?"

Work Get in the Way: So much for doing a little edit while at work. Your boss has just dropped a ton of work on you. Play this card on the player on your left to demotivate that player. Image: A person sitting at a desk in a cubicle, with a computer to the side and the desk absolutely covered in stacks of papers.

Honey-Do List: You have to get some chores done before you can get back to working on Wikipedia articles. Play this card on your player card as a demotivator.

Comments

Perhaps as the "Honey-Do List" quote, put an image of a dusty rug, a pile of dirty laundry, the trash can overflowing... etc. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why you would have any reason to play cards to motivate your opponent. That seems like it just harms you! RteeeeKed (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Colour or Designs for the Card Backs

• Rule: Produce multiple decks with difference colours or designs on the back.
• Dependencies: Players can play cards in other players' userspaces.
• Proposed by: Nutster (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If a player is playing cards from his/her deck in other players' userspaces, it will become important to determine whose card is being removed from play, so it can go to that player's graveyard. By having different colours or designs on the backs of the cards, the players should be able to easily and without argument determine whose card this is.

Comments We can make card sleeves to solve this problem. Billythekid314 19:06, October 15, 2016 (UTC-4)

Better bad card system

• Rule: As it stands, there is no reason to have any bad cards that do anything than very inconsequential things, so this needs to change. What I have in mind is that article cards are only usable by the player who played them, and bad cards are cards you can play to harm your opponent that are merged with the rest of your deck. You may play a bad card during your action phase, and that bad card will affect only your opponents cards. To make it so it's less complicated, group loss will be removed so that you can use as many bad cards as you want to.
• Dependencies: The deck of good events and bad events are no longer separated, article cards are separated, and the vandalism phase and group loss is removed
• Proposed by: RteeeeKed (talk)

Comments I know this changes a lot, but I hope this will still be considered. RteeeeKed (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Series

• Rule: Some article cards can be marked as part of a series. If you manage to get three cards of the same series in play (not counting duplicates) then the article quality is boosted by some amount that is said by the card. Rarer cards get boosted more. This could encourage trading. For example, a series could be one about cat breeds and could include Balinese cat, Calico Cat, and Bombay cat, among others.
• Dependencies: Duplicate article cards would not be allowed
• Proposed by: RteeeeKed (talk)

Comments

Minor edits to process

• Rule: Xfds should be discussed, and a player may lose a user right although they meet the cJ thresholds, via consensus.
• Dependencies: : None that I can think of, although this may be a blockade to winning.
• Proposed by: Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)

Comments