Forum:Errata Lore Colors?

As I am adding the lore that had seen difference each update. It was little hard when it was coming to second change, like Card_Errata:Amazoness_Tiger for explain. So I had recalling that one user - "Wasn't" or someone who tried that - tried to offering the idea of the main article of that card. It's a color difference that he wanted to place on the effect text that matched the condition. But since that idea was failure, I considered for a long while and came to this idea.

So instead of the main article, I would like to using his idea to put in the issue article like the one I showed above. As in Amazoness Tiger's first Effect Text, I would just leave it as italic;

Explain 1;
Original Card
You can only have 1 "Amazoness Tiger" on your side of the field. Increase the ATK of this card by 400 points for each monster on your side of the field that includes "Amazoness" in its name, or is named "Amazon Archer". As long as this card remains face-up on the field, your opponent cannot select another monster that includes "Amazoness" in its name, or is named "Amazon Archer", as an attack target.

Then by the first errata -

Explain 2;
First Errata'd Card
You can only have 1 "Amazoness Tiger" on your side of the field. Increase the ATK of this card by 400 points for each monster on your side of the field that includes "Amazoness" in its name, or is named "Amazon Archer". As long as this card remains face-up on the field, your opponent cannot attack another monster that included "Amazoness" in its name, or is named "Amazon Archer".

And finally, as for second errata -

Explain 3;
Second Errata'd Card
You can only control 1 "Amazoness Tiger". This card gains 400 ATK for each "Amazoness" monster you control. Your opponent cannot attack other "Amazoness" monster.

As of those explain, the letter that are in red, which would leaning from Original Card into First Errata Card, then Green doing same for Second Errata, and blue color is showing to removing the word as the latter would show to NOT have the words. I only post this up so any members, included Admins, would be sure to agree or disagree with this idea I have bring up with. If you think it's good idea, but has conflict, please post your word below, and let's see what we can dissolving further. Thanks for your understand and read. --FredCat 16:20, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the errata pages were done so that if they just reworded it better, but the effect is still the same, the text does not need to be bolded or changed in any way.

If the text is changed so that the card will then work differently, then a bold is needed. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:44, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I just found new problem, it's Card_Errata:Bottomless_Trap_Hole, it has being errata up to five times from the Original, and it's very difficult to manage with just Bold/Italic. Therefore this theory would be suggest to put in the using? --FredCat 15:33, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

highlight the text

I come with an idea about editing the errata pages, its not using Bold or coloring the text, just highlighted the new and the previous text, Whether its a word, Sentence or even letter. I will explain this here:

• Using red highlighted to tell that the text will be removed in the next errata'd card.
• Using yellow highlighted to tell that the text will be replaced to another text in the next errata'd card.
• Using aqua highlighted to tell that the text replace the old text in the previous errata'd card.
• Using lime highlighted to tell that the text replace the old text in the previous errata'd card, and will be replaced to another text in the next errata'd card.
• Using Blue highlighted to tell that the text is add in this errata'd card. (new text)
• Using green highlighted to tell that the text is add in this errata'd card, and will be replaced to another text in the next errata'd card. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 10:58, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

That's great, I allow you to take over my place - I no longer continued the Errata-Fixing job anymore. But I still doing Judge Rulings; as they are important part of the game. --FredCat 11:28, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

• This system seems like adding overcomplication to something that is currently simple. What's the point?--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 13:18, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

just thinking in a new way instead of Bold/Italic way. its not necessary, but its good in some card that have a lot of errata. I can enjoy making it overcomplication =) --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 14:52, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I find Dlamash's way better than our old tradition Bold/Italic - that's the reason why I decided to let you take my place here. So if you dare - check out my Errata Article (which is at my User Page) that covered each card I have added Bold/Italic so far. So good luck get them all change. --FredCat 15:07, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Colour coding is okay for making things clearer, but I don't think it should be the sole way of getting certain information across. People with visual impairments, including colour blindness, use the Internet too. And they're not always going to be able to interpret colour coding. -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:22, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

As much as this looks like overcomplicating, I actually like colour-coding.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 00:26, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

If this is done, the colors need to be chosen very carefully, to maximize the number of people with various forms of color-blindness who can make use of them. While this doesn't have to necessarily be done before any of it is deployed (particularly if everything is added via templates), the colors as given above do need to be changed - even for individuals with perfectly normal vision, telling the difference between lime and green will be hard at best, and we should lean towards colors that don't require changing the text color for the text to be legible. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:11, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just use color-coded italics? People with color-blindess can tell the difference in brightness, and personally I find highlighted letters a tiny bit annoying. But again, that's me :p Lon3wolf (talk • contribs) 14:36, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

coloring the text and using italic or Bold isn't good because in some case using it on comma ( , ) or Full stop ( . ) won't change anything, highlighting the text is the best choose. I suggest to use just yellow and aqua highlight as its light and most of color-blindness have problem with red and green color. one for the text that would change in the next errata, the other for the change made in the errata. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 17:32, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it, we can use highlight to mark the texts that would change, and use Bold to the change made. this will help us to mark the text that have changed and will be change, we can't highlight text with 2 highlight anyway unless we use another highlight which will make them 3 \= --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 03:24, November 5, 2011 (UTC)