Duplicates

[jerichoholic]

Just a reminder to everyone here who is on the site, please make sure you do a search before adding decks because i've noticed several duplicates in there that i've had to remove.

[dazzleguts]

Also make sure to check that the card maker isn't listed on it's own before you place decks in the "unknown" or general "vintage" sections.

This leads me to ask, is it all right to move the decks that are in vintage into their existing company categories? I thought the USPCC decks could be moved, and I've already moved the Rose & Pentagram decks.

[jerichoholic]

Yeah I fix what I can, I moved everything into CPC and GW after they were added. Also I think it would be good to remove some like Beta17 and Fulcrum since they only had 1 deck each, barely, and there is someone else with no decks. Companies like that should be removed, put them under USPCC or Kickstarter instead. Maybe other companies could be added in place of those.

[jerichoholic]

Yeah I fix what I can, I moved everything into CPC and GW after they were added. Also I think it would be good to remove some like Beta17 and Fulcrum since they only had 1 deck each, barely, and there is someone else with no decks. Companies like that should be removed, put them under USPCC or Kickstarter instead. Maybe other companies could be added in place of those.

[dazzleguts]

I agree. Perhaps there should be a minimum number of decks required for a company to have its own section? That way it will be a clear rule to follow. Some might never make another deck after that first one or two.

Meanwhile there are many makers, with numerous decks, that don't have sections of their own.

[ecNate]

I agree. Perhaps there should be a minimum number of decks required for a company to have its own section? That way it will be a clear rule to follow. Some might never make another deck after that first one or two.

Meanwhile there are many makers, with numerous decks, that don't have sections of their own.

Agree, but that will all change with the rewrite if/when Rhu gets there. At that point it won't be category based, but multiple attributes to sort by. For the moment let's go with a minimum of 3 decks, although I think we could even go as high as requiring 5 to have their own category. Especially since as was stated some are likely to be needed already that have more than this (Heretic alone suggests a need for Lorenzo). The following companies had 0-2 decks listed so I updated them all to null, added a comment who they are from and then hide the related company.

BETA17
CARDSDANCING
DECKSO
DMC Magic
FIRE MOUNTAIN GAMES
FULCRUM SEVEN
LUMBERJACK
SHANE TYREE
SKULKOR

[Sparkz]

Ya, my bad today on the Heretic dup. Fat fingered the search text...........I'll take my lashes now.

[rhu]

I like the minimum number of decks idea, the categorisation is getting a major overhaul anyway so I'll hopefully be able to incorporate this. I know I've been promising this for a while but it really is coming

If I implement the new categorisation just now then I risk giving myself a LOT more work to do on PCDB v2 when I port the data over.

[Frimann79]

I hope this is the right place to post.

I'm pretty sure ID = 6 and ID = 2673 is the same deck.. Tally-Ho Fan Back Black

[Frimann79]

And I think Les Melies Voyagers Blue (id=2944) and Space Blue Voyager (id=2414) are the same deck as well

[flyers3003]

And I think Les Melies Voyagers Blue (id=2944) and Space Blue Voyager (id=2414) are the same deck as well

I'd recommend deleting 2414 as the name for 2944 matches the red version by having Les Melies in the title. Also it is correct by using Voyagers instead of Voyager. Plus it has pictures.

[Frimann79]

Definitely!

[ecNate]

I hope this is the right place to post.

I'm pretty sure ID = 6 and ID = 2673 is the same deck.. Tally-Ho Fan Back Black

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=6
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2673
Deleted #2673, @Lydian and @Frimann79 should update collections to #6 instead

And I think Les Melies Voyagers Blue (id=2944) and Space Blue Voyager (id=2414) are the same deck as well

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2414
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2944
If these are indeed duplicates I would agree 2944 is the better, but the "Space Blue Voyager" title is so odd I wonder if perhaps it is an unknown deck that is just similar in name. "Voyager" and not "Voyagers" and where did "Space" come from? For that reason I just added a comment with an updated "UNDER REVIEW" title and am leaving it for now. Unless @amcshane or @oakleys47 who added to collection can clarify?

[Slavich]

I hope this is the right place to post.

I'm pretty sure ID = 6 and ID = 2673 is the same deck.. Tally-Ho Fan Back Black

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=6
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2673
Deleted #2673, @Lydian and @Frimann79 should update collections to #6 instead

And I think Les Melies Voyagers Blue (id=2944) and Space Blue Voyager (id=2414) are the same deck as well

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2414
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2944
If these are indeed duplicates I would agree 2944 is the better, but the "Space Blue Voyager" title is so odd I wonder if perhaps it is an unknown deck that is just similar in name. "Voyager" and not "Voyagers" and where did "Space" come from? For that reason I just added a comment with an updated "UNDER REVIEW" title and am leaving it for now. Unless @amcshane or @oakleys47 who added to collection can clarify?

Looks like Space Blue is the official colour title:
http://www.artofplay.com/products/les-m ... er-edition
so I imagine that deck id=2414 is a duplicate.

[Frimann79]

@ecNate: They are the same deck. On the KS project the decks were called Space blue and Aurora Red but referred to as just blue and red.

This is from the KS project:


If you look at the rewards you'll see that they are just called blue and red there
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/65 ... escription" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Frimann79]

Next one:

COCA-COLA POLAR BEARS (id=2432) is the same deck as either COCA-COLA POLAR BEAR CLIMBING (id=2337) or COCA-COLA POLAR BEAR IN COOLER (id=2338)

2432 is in the USPCC category and the other two are in the - category, that's probably why it was added twice.

There are Coca Cola decks in 3 different categories actually:
1531, 1591, 1598, 1726, 1728, 1913, 2432, 2433, 2611, 2612 and 3247 in USPCC
2029, 2337 and 2338 in -
1729, 2382 and 2383 in Vintage

I guess the vintage ones are okay, but all the other ones should probably be in the - category since USPCC hardly were the ones to come up with the ideas for those decks

[badpete69]

I had to fix the Melies decks as they were all mixed up originally. I also added the pics. I can always add the word Space if it makes some happy but I think the entries are accurate as is

[Frimann79]

I think yours should stay.. it's the Space Blue entry that doesn't fit the other Melies.

[ecNate]

I hope this is the right place to post.

I'm pretty sure ID = 6 and ID = 2673 is the same deck.. Tally-Ho Fan Back Black

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=6
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2673
Deleted #2673, @Lydian and @Frimann79 should update collections to #6 instead

And I think Les Melies Voyagers Blue (id=2944) and Space Blue Voyager (id=2414) are the same deck as well

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2414
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2944
If these are indeed duplicates I would agree 2944 is the better, but the "Space Blue Voyager" title is so odd I wonder if perhaps it is an unknown deck that is just similar in name. "Voyager" and not "Voyagers" and where did "Space" come from? For that reason I just added a comment with an updated "UNDER REVIEW" title and am leaving it for now. Unless @amcshane or @oakleys47 who added to collection can clarify?

OK, went ahead and deleted the 2414 entry. @amcshane and @oakleys47 should update their entries to remove it and instead use 2944. Thanks for the legwork on this one.

[ecNate]

Next one:

COCA-COLA POLAR BEARS (id=2432) is the same deck as either COCA-COLA POLAR BEAR CLIMBING (id=2337) or COCA-COLA POLAR BEAR IN COOLER (id=2338)

2432 is in the USPCC category and the other two are in the - category, that's probably why it was added twice.

There are Coca Cola decks in 3 different categories actually:
1531, 1591, 1598, 1726, 1728, 1913, 2432, 2433, 2611, 2612 and 3247 in USPCC
2029, 2337 and 2338 in -
1729, 2382 and 2383 in Vintage

I guess the vintage ones are okay, but all the other ones should probably be in the - category since USPCC hardly were the ones to come up with the ideas for those decks

Ugh, seriously. It is CRITICAL that everybody does a SEARCH before adding new decks and using a short most likely search term. So clearly between these the earlier one (2338) wins which also has better scans & name and is in proper category. This means that @Frimann79 @PurpleIce and @thecardists should update their collection to point to 2338 instead.
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=2338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think we need to get too hung up on categories since hopefully within the next months or at least sometime this year, that becomes a non-issue when we get unlimited and multiple ways of grouping with v2. Although, agree USPCC often is not the proper selection since our current BRAND field really means PRODUCER and USPCC was most likely always just the manufacturer. However, in this case I do believe USPCC licensed a number of decks for their own production and sale, including CocaCola, so it's quite possible many do belong under USPCC here. For that reason I don't plan to update these at this time.

The main lesson here is don't just search for 'super long deck name' or just look under a category to see if it's there. SEARCH. Also, search using the most likely used word, or portion of it, in a deck name, 'cola' in this case and be CERTAIN before adding new.

Thanks for the good eyes and report gang.

[flyers3003]

Not sure if these are dupes, but its hard to tell with only a card back scan for one of them - 2710 & 3243 - The cards backs are the same, just not sure if there is a different tuck.

As well as 2715 & 3242.

[flyers3003]

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=371 ... er-bicycle
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=115 ... er-bicycle

And

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=200 ... me-to-chew
https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?id=681 ... rt-bicycle