quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
I have not been involved in any of the work on wiki or even visited it, but if you feel concerned about any sort of a bent to the editing, by all means, add some things in. Isn't that the point of wiki? A page for the people from the people?
THat is both the good and the bad I'd imagine of wiki, but it's surely something to embrace if you feel it's needing a different voice. Be that voice and make sure the parts of the hobby you hold dear are up there.

I agree with you STCardGeek. Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia and the articles are written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, and it has about 100,000 active contributors.

So if anyone feels something needs to be added, changed or edited in whatever way, (s)he can do that. But I certainly don't like people who have a whinge, but won't change the situation they b*tch about because they are too lazy.

As for my part, I simply started creating the page for Inkworks because it's my favourite non-sport company and since they are out of business, I'm glad 'lisalisa' can't accuse me of doing massive promo for them.

The crux of the argument that any entity that had an effect over the years should be included is a good and valid one.(NOt sure I like how it was presented, though!!) NSU, COllect, Inkwroks, etc. Bring it on! I think there is a tendancy to think of a thing in it's current state and perhaps not so much what is was, but we should always remember our roots!

I've been sort of avoiding this because it seems. . . well . . . a bit contentious. . .

I haven't edited a word of the document so I really have no right to say anything, but . . . I can't hold my tongue. . .

The intro seems much longer than most Wikipedia intros. . . perhaps part of that should be made into another section. . .

The organization seems odd to me -- the first section after the summary is sketch cards?!? That's one of the most recent trading card innovations, so it seems to be it should be later in the article. . . also that section links to 'Artist Trading Cards,' which, in the scope of non-sport cards aren't really all that related. . .

The distribution section mostly describes packaging. . . Distribution, specifically should talk about getting cards from manufacturers to customers. . .

The grammar is . . . well. . . here for example:
"Often these sets will have character cards as well as behind the scenes or quote cards as well."

The distribution information in this section is wrong:
"Today most card packs are made out of foil or plastic and are sold in comic book stores and at some big box retailers like Target and Wal-Mart."

For most sets far more cards are sold through specialty dealers than at either comic stores or mass merchants. Certainly there are exceptions. . . lots of product is also sold directly to consumer now.

Also much of the information on the non-sport card page is duplicated on the trading card page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_card

A link to the non-sport page should be added from the trading card page, and duplicate information should be avoided.

Not that anyone asked, but those are a few things I saw when I took a quick look. . .

Jon

This message has been edited. Last edited by: webjon,

As for Jon's constructive critism about the Non-Sport trading card article... I agree with you, Jon!
I just had another close look at the article and I'm completly missing a structure. The first paragraph/introduction is way too long and the content table should be more built like this:

CONTENT
1 History
1.1 pre 1900
1.2 1900 - 1944
1.2 1945 - 1979
1.3 1980 - 1999
1.3 2000 - present

2 Type of cards
2.1 Base cards
2.2 Chase cards
2.3 Autograph cards
2.4 Costume cards
2.6 Prop cards
2.7 Other Memorabilia cards
2.5 Sketch cards
2.5 Other cards

3. Storage

4. Value
Further information:[linked to the Value section of the Trading Card article]

5. Terminology
Further information:[linked to the Terminology section of the Trading Card article]

6. Distribution

7. Manufacturers
(insert the table from the Trading Card article)

8. Popular culture references

9. References

10. External links

By "2.7 Other Memorabilia cards" I mean cards that feature a coin, stamp, space flown piece of whatever, etc.
Every section of the "Type of cards" should have a sample photo included.
And "8. Popular culture references" is basicly the section "Trading cards in Media" which should be shortened anyway.

Once you have a good structure you can start to fill each segment with content. Bear in mind that you are not writing a dissertation and no reader would expect you to go too deep into details.

Well, that's what comes to mind after a quick think, but maybe someone else has even better suggestions.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: H_Toser,

Good stuff!

A solid encyclopedia entry requires a description of what trading cards are materially, and then some catalog of the many subjects presented on them, plus a thorough history noting the companies that have produced them along with trends and innovations over the years, and all of this with verification. The difficulty is not so much the enthusiasm for the task, but rather that written sources have generally been scarce where non-sport cards are concerned.

From 1990 through about 1995, a wealth of Non-Sport themed magazines existed, and then there's good ol' NSU, of course, and the magazine of record for over 20 years and counting, and king of them all.
I've saved all of my back issues from NSU and many more from the also-rans from that era, mainly because each is loaded with information direct from the manufacturer, plus ad copy.
I can't be the only interested party who did, so that era, at least, can certainly be documented thoroughly.

The ultimate goal of Wikipedia, of any good encyclopedia, is to give a comprehensive account of a subject using only verifiable facts, so that the knowledge is totally objective and therefore of use to all who receive it. Much care can must be taken to not let personal opinion into the description at the expense of facts, which can sometimes be tricky, particularly when there is some controversy involved.

The new Wikipedia for Non-Sport looks better, but it miss a good Content table.

Thanks to to the people who write the new stuff, but to be objective. Why focus 3 types of insert/chase cards in the content?

I second estephano's Content table with some little edit in the "Type of Cards".

2 Type of cards
2.1 Base cards
2.2 Insert/Chase cards (Foil, Hologram, Prism, Autograph, Costume, Sketch, etc.)
2.3 Promo Cards

quote:

Originally posted by kane1:
The new Wikipedia for Non-Sport looks better, but it miss a good Content table.

Thanks to to the people who write the new stuff, but to be objective. Why focus 3 types of insert/chase cards in the content?

I second estephano's Content table with some little edit in the "Type of Cards".

2 Type of cards
2.1 Base cards
2.2 Insert/Chase cards (Foil, Hologram, Prism, Autograph, Costume, Sketch, etc.)
2.3 Promo Cards

I organised them on purpose into
2 Type of cards
2.1 Base cards
2.2 Chase cards
2.3 Autograph cards
2.4 Costume cards
2.6 Prop cards
2.7 Other Memorabilia cards
2.5 Sketch cards
2.5 Other cards

because a) the field of different insert/chase cards has become way too large in the last 10 years, b) if a seperate sub-category is created, it can be directly linked to from other Wikipedia articles and c) there are a lot of collector who only collect either autograph, costume or promo cards.

While no one expects you to write a dissertion about each type of card, each type has a unique characteristic that deserves a sub-category.

IMO it would be good to first create a content table like above and then fill each segment with objective/neutral content. This isn't something that is done on a weekend, it will take weeks, if not months until the final article is finished. I'd rather see a well thought and sorted article about our hobby (even if it will take months to finish it) than the article that is currently available.

Good work everyone on fixing the listing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: H_Toser,