-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adding autonomous territories #602
Comments
Thanks very much for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't think we're likely to add these territories to the main deck, principally because there are too many of them, and most people won't be interested in them. Our current inclusion criteria of autonomous and dependent territories were (after long discussions...) chosen to be such that the relatively few such territories we include are those likely to be of greatest interest to users (largest, most populous, furthest away from the "parent country" (i.e. appear more distinct)). However, in the long run, we would very much like to have a constellation of additional geography decks under Please let us know if this is something you'd like to spearhead! (Otherwise, it'll probably happen eventually, but not soon...) |
Thanks for the answer, |
That's great to hear! In that case, I'll create a repo for the new deck, under Would you prefer the repo to be called something like "autonomous territories" or, say, "hardcore geography" or something else? The main distinction is that in the first case we'd intend to just have all autonomous territories there, and then separate repos for each of mountains, lakes, smaller seas etc. (once we come to them!), while in the second, we'd (eventually, in the long run!) fit everything that's too extensive for the current main deck in this new deck. We can easily migrate notes between decks, so this isn't at all set in stone. :) |
I'm particularly interested in the "hardcore geography" one, it fits perfectly what I'd like to do. |
That's great! :)
My apologies for the very late response! (It turned out that I've had (and have) even less time than I had thought :/). Ideally, we'd follow the structure, conventions and styles used in the main deck ("ultimate geography"), but if an alternative for any of these would be more convenient for you, we could also do that. In terms of structure, we currently use BrainBrew to manage the decks, which allows us to keep the card/note contents in The styling/formatting is in If this sounds sensible (and not too stifling/overly bureaucratic) to you, I can open a PR to As a heads up: I'll open an issue in However, I definitely don't think that we need to finalise any of the decisions there before starting
|
Alright, it seems excellent to me! By doing that, I probably broke the BrainBrew compatibility and maybe other things too. There may be some sort of an issue between the decks with the flag similarities and capital hints because these fields may be needed only with both of the decks. |
Thanks! That looks great! I'd go with changing the note model UUID, but we can change our mind later.
Ugh, yes, that's a good point! |
I don't think we should worry about the main deck not hinting at the hardcore deck, as long as the hardcore deck does hint at the main deck when needed. The important is to be able to distinguish cards during reviews, and one card having a hint is enough in this case, in my opinion, since 1) there's clearly a hierarchy here (the main deck's card is more "significant" than the hardcore deck's card); 2) the main deck's card is likely to show up first (since most users would learn UG before HG). |
Hello, I thought it could be great to add those territories:
(All of them are gotten from the french Wikipedia pages https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomie_territoriale?oldformat=true and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9gion_autonome?oldformat=true)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: