Talk:Cards Against Humanity

Unexplained reversion

Having been reverted by jd22292, I'm wondering why. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

1. The game is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. While this part was constructive, I have copyedited it for clarification.
2. In the second paragraph of the lead, you added a serial comma, which is a trait of a known sockmaster here on Wikipedia. Typically, the use of such comma is frowned upon.
3. Linking Kickstarter and Tumblr are not necessary per WP:OLINK.
4. In Criticism, you removed ellipses from a quote, which is meant to represent a continuation where something in the quote is rather unimportant compared to the rest of the quote.
5. You removed See alsos for Apples to Apples and Comedy Against Humanity, the latter of which you turned into a section link. Apples to Apples has been known to be compared to Cards Against Humanity in how it's played, and by removing it, it creates confusion. In addition, the description for Dixit was perfectly valid.

I will talk more about unexplained reversions on your Talk page. Article talk pages are meant to have discussion about content, not about other editors. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292:

The game is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. While this part was constructive, I have copyedited it for clarification.

So I'm not sure why it was reverted altogether without your amending it until I raised the issue here. Additionally, the construction you replaced it with – "a Creative Commons license Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike" – is not grammatical. How is it appropriate to use "Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike" as a postpositive modifier?

In the second paragraph of the lead, you added a serial comma, which is a trait of a known sockmaster here on Wikipedia. Typically, the use of such comma is frowned upon.

I'm not going to fight over a comma of all things, but where in the MOS does it provide that "the use of such comma is frowned upon"?

Linking Kickstarter and Tumblr are not necessary per WP:OLINK.

To which provision of WP:OLINK are you referring?

In Criticism, you removed ellipses from a quote, which is meant to represent a continuation where something in the quote is rather unimportant compared to the rest of the quote.

No ellipses were removed. They were moved and reformatted in accordance with the MOS. Additionally, I removed part of the quotation which did not make sense without the context of the omitted parts of the original article.

You removed See alsos for Apples to Apples and Comedy Against Humanity, the latter of which you turned into a section link. Apples to Apples has been known to be compared to Cards Against Humanity in how it's played, and by removing it, it creates confusion. In addition, the description for Dixit was perfectly valid.

With respect to Apples to Apples, it was linked elsewhere in the article so I removed it pursuant to MOS:EMBED. I replaced the section link relating to Comedy Against Humanity as it was linking to a section of the Under the Gun Theater article that bore no relation to Comedy Against Humanity. The description for Dixit was removed as it was unnecessary and out of place given that none of the other see also links had descriptions.

You also reverted other changes such as the addition of a portal, the correction of curly punctuation per MOS:PUNCT, and the correction of a citation.

Article talk pages are meant to have discussion about content, not about other editors.

Are you suggesting that this discussion is not about content? I'm primarily concerned with the reversion itself. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the second question, see MOS:SERIAL. In reply to the third question, WP:OLINK discourages linking the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link. There was no contextual importance to the links. I've seen more usage of structures like "writer Dan Brooks" compared to "the writer Dan Brooks", but I forget if there's an MOS that describes this. As for my mention of "about content," I didn't want to discuss your other reversions here as I am aware of how Talk pages work. Other than that, I acknowledge your other improvements. Anyway, I will go back and make the necessary changes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292:

In reply to the second question, see MOS:SERIAL.

I just looked it over. Where does it provide that "Typically, the use of such comma is frowned upon"? Additionally, I should note that it does provide that the article should be "internally consistent" and an Oxford comma is already used in most of the other places in the article where I can see that one could be used.

In reply to the third question, WP:OLINK discourages linking the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link. There was no contextual importance to the links.

The passage you cited does not require "contextual importance" as prerequisite to linking. The relevance of "contextual importance" is conditional upon "readers ... be[ing] at least somewhat familiar" with the subject's name. While I have no doubt that knowledge of Tumblr and Kickstarter is ubiquitous in some circles – e.g., amongst people of a certain generation in English-speaking Western countries – that knowledge can hardly be assumed of most readers. To assume such knowledge would be to continue Wikipedia's well-established systemic bias.

I've seen more usage of structures like "writer Dan Brooks" compared to "the writer Dan Brooks", but I forget if there's an MOS that describes this.

While the former construction has become more acceptable in recent decades, I added the definite article as I had to read the sentence twice because I initially read it as "letter of complaint to The New York Times Magazine writer Dan Brooks". While the comma following the name of the publication indicates that Mr Brooks is not, in fact, a New York Times Magazine writer to whom the letter was addressed, I added the definite article for the sake of clarity. To the best of my knowledge, the MOS does not address this particular matter, but I see no reason why the definite article should not be added for clarity given that both constructions are considered grammatical nowadays.

Lastly, I noticed that your recent edit reinserted the abbreviation BY-NC-SA. I'm not clear as to why that particular piece of jargon should be in the article's lead when the abbreviation is not otherwise referred to in the article and does not aid the reader's understanding of the game's public copyright licence. (Of course, should the reader wish to learn more about the terminology associated with various CC licences, more information is available in the wikilinked article.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for having restored my original reversion. I do hope that in the future you might think twice before leaping to accusations of sockpuppetry. Cheers, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cards Against Humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151012121446/http://chicagoist.com/2015/08/27/cards_against_humanity_teams_up_wit.php to http://chicagoist.com/2015/08/27/cards_against_humanity_teams_up_wit.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail and lack of referencing

The article certainly needs more references and some parts need rewriting to avoid sounding like they've been copied from promotional material. However, the information is accurate and useful. Let's discuss the merits on the talk page before obliterating half the article. M.Clay1 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a complete historical listing of their products WP:NOTCATALOG or detail how many cards are in each expansion pack are white and black, or what the icon on the set is. Compare to Ben & Jerry's which doesn't list every single flavor but highlights significant events around particular creations and related controversies on its reception. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose including the "Expansions and additional products" section in this article. It's a list of commercial products with no other informational value. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If the Black Friday promotions are listed, should CAH's holiday promotions also be listed? Like their Ten Days or Whatever of Kwanzaa thing? ClaireArgent (talk) 4:41, 12 May 2019 (PST)

The expansions section is quite big, but doesn't it have value in the sense of collector's items? Maybe it could be pared down to a bulleted list, like a bibliography instead of the massive table. ColourfulKharacter (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic of the article?

Is the topic of this article the game Cards Against Humanity, or the company called Cards Against Humanity that manufactures, sells, and markets that game? 00:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say both. Ifni400 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

huh??Tommy has a great username (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's both. It covers the game and the company that makes the product. But the primary part is the game itself. The company does make related products, but it doesn't need to go into the corporate history of how the company was put together as that part isn't really that notable, unless someone has actually found material to explain that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)