Forum:Organising the Card Rulings Pages

I'm trying to think of a better way to organise the OCG rulings in the Card Rulings pages.

Right now, they are organised as:

• The main section lists the rulings that directly mention the card.
• The OCG FAQ sometimes interlinks its rulings, so that searching for a certain card also brings up relevant rulings. These are listed as "Mentions in Other Rulings". For example, searching the OCG FAQ for "Dimensional Fissure" also gives a lot of rulings for "Macro Cosmos", even though none of these rulings specifically mention "Dimensional Fissure".

I organised the pages like this since the OCG FAQ is organised differently from the TCG FAQ. The TCG FAQ groups the rulings by card, so it's easy to tell which ruling are for the card, and which rulings just mention the card.

The OCG FAQ has very little organisation, and instead relies mainly on the Search function. Most rulings are only grouped under very broad categories: "Common Question > Monsters", "Common Question > Spells", and/or "Common Question > Traps". The preliminary rulings/card lore pages are sorted by set, so you can search for all cards that were released in ABPF; but, this only brings up the preliminary rulings and card lore. Rarely, rulings are given a tag like "[Damage Step]" or "[Basic Rules]". But, that's pretty much it. The current system for Card Rulings pages is a result of this ambiguity.

However, this leads to pages like Card Rulings:Iron Core of Koa'ki Meiru, where most of the rulings are something like,

Revealing one "Iron Core of Koa'ki Meiru" is a cost to activate "Reckoned Power".

...which has nothing to do with "Iron Core of Koa'ki Meiru" or its effect, other than as a mention. This seems to be occurring more often lately - "Sun Dragon Inti" and "Moonlight Dragon Quilla" have the same problem.

There's also pages like Card Rulings:Book of Moon. Flipping through it, there's only one ruling that specifically deals with "Book of Moon" (maybe two, if you count the Priority one), and all the others are on how other cards deal with being flipped face-down. Many of the rulings say "If ___ is flipped face-down by an effect like "Book of Moon",..." or "...by "Book of Moon", etc,...", so "Book of Moon" can be substituted with any other card that flips face-down, and the rulings would still be the same. The ruling doesn't directly deal with "Book of Moon", so it should probably be listed secondarily, apart from the rulings that deal directly with "Book of Moon".

I'm trying to think of a better way to organise the rulings. The best I have right now is as follows:

• Rulings that directly mention the card and directly deal with the card's effect are listed under the main section.
• As Examples in Other Rulings: The "Book of Moon" example above. This section contains rulings say mention "a card like ___" or "___, etc". If possible, this section will be organised like the TCG "Mentions..." section, with links back to the card in question, and the rulings sorted alphabetically.
• Mentions in Other Rulings: Quite literally, mentions. The card is mentioned, but the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the card or its effect. The above example of "Iron Core of Koa'ki Meiru" would be an example.
• Related Rulings: This would be the cross-referenced rulings, which are currently listed as "Mentions in Other Rulings".

Some issues:

• Does anyone else see a problem? Am I the only one who has problems flipping through Card Rulings:Book of Moon or Card Rulings:Stardust Dragon?
• Most pages are fine as-is; the problem is with a few pages. However, these pages tend to be the most popular cards, like "Book of Moon" or "Stardust Dragon".
• Which rulings end up where is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that we'll sort them by consensus?
• Does anyone else have any other ideas on organising it?

--Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 23:49, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm in favour.

Re: Some issues.

• Yeah, I've seen the problem in TCG mentions in other rulings. Being in the OCG rulings main section is even more problematic.
• Mmhhh.
• I can't imagine there'll be many arguments over sorting which sections they go in, since there aren't many OCG rulings contributers.
• Haven't really got any other ideas. But is this just for OCG rulings or are thinking of doing the same with TCG rulings?

-- Deltaneos (talk) 01:36, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was only planning on doing this for the OCG rulings, since the TCG rulings seem pretty well organised. I suppose we can also do the TCG rulings?

If we do, then should we get rid of the old system? For example, the TCG rulings for "Dark End Dragon" all directly reference "Dark End Dragon", so should they go under the main section and not as a "Mention"? (Probably with a link back to "Light End Dragon", to show from where the rulings came.)

Even under my new system, we'd still have a large block of rulings - "Book of Moon" has 70+ OCG rulings which all say the same thing (If X is flipped face down, then the effect of Y disappears.), so they'd all appear under the same section. We could further break down the section; by alpha, maybe? ("Mentions in Other Rulings (A-G)", "MiOR (H-N)", etc)

There's also pages like Card Rulings:Sangan - it has rulings on its effect being mandatory/on SEGOC (vs "7"), on the effect activating in the Graveyard (vs "Dark Ruler Ha Des"), and rulings on searching (vs "Deck Lockdown"). Do we want to break it down further, and have one sub-section for each?

--Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 04:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

The "Sangan" one sounds like a good idea. I don't think I mind either way about splitting alphabetically. Also does anyone know if editing sections longer than 32 kb still cause browsers to go slow or stop responding? -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:51, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's an example: User:Deus Ex Machina/Sandbox2. Suggestions? I'll try to do "Stardust Dragon" next, since it actually has some OCG rulings that specifically deal with it >.>

One thing I noticed is that we don't need the "As Examples..." section, since all the other rulings can be placed under the individual sections. But, would this make the sections too crowded?

--Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 02:05, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Here's "Stardust Dragon", in case anyone is still paying attention. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 00:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)