Talk:Cards Against Humanity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Linked articles

• Added links to the pages for Kickstarter and Highland Park High School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.225 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Added a link to party games.

BY-NC-SA is not open source

BY-NC-SA is not open source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvalka xant (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true. A copy of Cards Against Humanity does not meet the unofficial common definition of open source. However the makers of Cards Against Humanity and others have referred to it as an open source project anyway. BY-NC-SA is still arguably open source, and some people consider it so, and in fact it still syncs with wiki's current description of "In production and development, open source is a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details.".

From my understanding, their claim of copyright is on the actual content of the cards and the name, not on the game mechanic. Perhaps that is in part what they are referring to. It also could also be they are using another definition of open source, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Rules_Licence

I still agree that pending further research, it should be reworded, which I will do.

RickO5 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The onion is a joke...

Reference #2 is referencing a joke news website and not an actual source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.203.29 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Onion AV Club is a legitimate media review publication that is included in the print version of the Onion (usually at the back). The review is real. 18.111.45.227 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

Why remove the "See Also" section I added? This game has a quite similar mechanic to Apples to Apples, and that should be noted. Is there a preferred way to note that? Or was there some other reason for the deletion? GullyFoyle (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. The IP address which made the change only has edits which appear to monitor this page and delete references to Apples to Apples with the note "No justified connection." Guess I'll wait a little while for a response, then justify the (to me obvious) connection in their nearly-identical mechanic. GullyFoyle (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

GullyFoyle, it seems this user's only priority is Cards Against Humanity; I would not be surprised if they turned out to have a bias and external interest. What is the protocol in this sort of situation? LDTrain (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Advert

I marked this advert. It's mostly fine, but the first sentence sounds like marketing copy, and the prominent slogan in the sidebar isn't great. Anybody have thoughts? Can we just remove the "politically incorrect" from the first line and maybe move the slogan to a less prominent spot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoidbeemer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added quotes to the tagline to make it clear that it's a phrase associated with the game and not a claim being made by the article. I also moved the phrase politically incorrect out of the first sentence to make it have a more neutral POV. 18.75.3.139 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoidbeemer (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Error

I don't possess social skills and I can still play just fine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.240.234 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AV Club review

I can't find this anywhere online. The creators reference it in their kickstarter but that's all I could find so far.-Citing (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Calumnet

"Calumnet, on the other hand, called the game "the very definition of drudgery, no laughs, no smiles, not a single moment of fun" [13]" - When I follow the link, I find only a message board, "Rubynet" and no mention of the game. I thought this was just a bad link, but I've googled for the quote, as well as for various combinations of Calumnet and Cards Against Humanity, and so far I am not finding anything. I would simply remove it, but since it is the only negative statement about the game, and since these folks kindly donated a pile of money to the Wikimedia Foundation recently, I wouldn't want to be accused of conflict-of-interest if there is, in fact, a negative review with that line in it that I just can't find. So I raise the question here and leave it to others to contemplate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed it earlier - it clearly doesn't meeting our criteria for reliable sources. I'm guessing it's just some forum in-joke.-Citing (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples

While this article does a good job of talking about the game, I still have no sense of what the game contains. Why is it called "Cards Against Humanity"? What in the game makes it inhumane? Can someone please include a few samples of black cards and white cards so readers can get a sense of the game contents? These are allowed under fair use. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Tanervin added some example card images. Thank you! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And now they are gone. Sheesh. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Retail

Despite what the founders may have said, the game is most certainly available in retail outlets here in Australia - the "Mind Games" games shops stock it, with expansions, albeit in small quantities. It's possible these are grey imports rather than being formally distributed for retail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.208.23 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

fanpov and third-party April 2015

I added the fanpov and third-party tags because there's too much positive (pro-CAH) material sourced only to non-independent sources published by Cards Against Humanity / AdMagic Inc. In general if something is noteworthy it will be mentioned by independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansions and additional products

CaptainMorganLBI, why did you revert and re-add unsourced raw data? Please review WP:V and WP:RAWDATA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have re-blanked the "‎Expansions and additional products" subsection due to lack of response here. Please participate in this discussion instead of reverting, and not that content should not be added simply because it might be useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding the "Expansions and Additional Products" back. The reason being a number of other games on Wikipedia that have this information listed for them as well that may not fit the normal mode of a Wikipedia page. I have provide examples of this:Dominion_(card_game) Bang! Apples_to_Apples--Crblackhawk (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Irony

Perhaps someone can point out the irony of a supposedly politically incorrect party game bowing to political pressure and removing some of its cards from its packs. If I were making a politically incorrect party game and got complaints from a particular group, I would add MORE offensive material concerning that group. 76.4.109.159 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Table

Add the table back in and my verification for the info is https://store.cardsagainsthumanity.com/ That is the Cards Against Humanity store which has all the info listed in the table. I feel there is no need for a second source since that is the company website. If there is a problem with that feel free to change it. Joker4lifead (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that secondary sources are unnecessary for most of the information. The most reliable source on what products are available to buy is the place where you can buy them. M.Clay1 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Language and Tone

Using "pooped" in a sentence is not appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should therefore be written with academic language. See WP:TONE. It has nothing to do with censorship or it being a rude word. We don't write with slang. It doesn't matter what the original source uses. The game and rules are full of jokes, but we don't include jokes in the article. If you want to directly quote the rules in the article, that would be different. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning. It doesn't matter what the original source uses is a nonsense statement, and expressly the opposite of WP policy. Using "pooped" preserves the intent of the authors to convey humor, while your interpretation sounds like it's straining for formality, per WP:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary and leaves the reader confused; it detracts from the quality and flow of the article. In the absence of a compelling reason not to, I think we should preserve the wording in the source. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You take the information from the source not the language (unless the information is related to language, obviously). There are plenty of articles on the Internet, for example, that are written in a jokey informal tone. If you were referencing such an article for its information, you wouldn't use the same wording. Music articles often say that albums are "dropped" instead of "released", but you wouldn't write that in a Wikipedia article. If the CAH rules read, "All peeps must take a quick squizz inside each other's buttholes to see who last went poopy", we wouldn't copy that word-for-word into the article. (It would be plagiarism if we did, for a start.) The relevant information is about defecation, and we can write about it with whatever appropriate language (in terms of tone not sensibilities) we choose. The use of "pooped" in the original source is irrelevant; it's also deliberately childish. "Defecated" does not give the impression that we're "straining for formality"; it's a basic word. If you think there's a better non-slang way of referring to taking a shit, then I'm happy to go with that – I don't care about the word. To be honest, it would probably be better just to quote the original source, since it sounds so unbelievable otherwise. M.Clay1 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Where did the section containing all the different releases go?

There used to be a section in this article that had a list of every release the game had. It was accurate and complete to my knowledge and yet now that section is gone. major fail wikipedia, major fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.22.83 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As described in the section immediately above this one, I removed that content because it was unsourced and unencyclopedic. If you liked that content, you can still access it here, and you are free to post it on a blog or other website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Was this a section detailing changes and differences between 1.3, 1.x, 1.x, etc. numbers and/or release dates or other information of the various editions? I actually came here looking for this, and the current article and expansion packs, etc. chart detail some of that and it seems like it would make sense to fit a "versions of the main game" back into that chart. Oh, hmm, looking at the link above, it looks like it wasn't.. it was that data that IS currently in the chart, but not the data I'm looking for. Centerone (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you referencing to the table or something else as per the Cards Against Humanity website it say that all the expansion packs 1-3 were replace with the red box and 4-6 were replaced with the blue box. As for the release dates I don't think anyone has found conclusive facts to finish putting releaseJoker4lifead (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC) dates.

No, not expansion packs. NOT 1-3 ! As I said, 1.3 etc. etc. There seem to be slightly different releases of the standard main box with different version numbers. Centerone (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So I went back and looked at that edit from 16:53, 14 May 2015 by Dr. Fleischman it just had the current information in the current table that I readded back in 20 December 2016 but it was not as orgainzed. It didn't have the 1.3, 1.x, 1.x etc that your looking for. Most likely because of what i said about anyone has found conclusive informantion. Joker4lifead (talk) 07:03, 13 April 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/20141220073939/http://voices.suntimes.com/business-2/grid/cards-against-humanity-game-money/ to http://voices.suntimes.com/business-2/grid/cards-against-humanity-game-money/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

I think it could make sense to create a seperate article for the company, especially as they've now expanded beyond the game by purchasing Clickhole. Tovlyd (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with making an article about the company. They've also made news for things like protesting the wall between the USA and Mexico. Mateussf (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)