Revision as of 03:08, 10 July 2021 editOknazevad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users106,317 edits →Uncommon odd-numbered dice← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:29, 8 September 2021 edit undoPearBOT II (talk | contribs)Bots171,709 editsm Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfDTag: PAWS [2.1]Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header|archive_age=90|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | ||
{{Vital article | {{Vital article | ||
| topic = Life | | topic = Life | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|dounreplied=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
Revision as of 19:29, 8 September 2021
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Dice was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Augustus and Tacitus dates
Comment to https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031
I added the dates because they show that Augustus died 42 years before Tacitus was born, and therefore COULDN’T have written a letter to him. I presume it’s a mangling of an actual fact, which some other editor may be able to supply. I modified the article rather than simply commenting here, as I have observed that Talk page comments are far less likely now to result in action to correct an article than was the case 15 years ago. Koro Neil (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- So... you're just going to leave in the article what you consider to be an error, but actually making it worse by making it look silly? In the hopes that maybe someone will eventually come along and fix it? Do you have access to the cited source to see if the error is in the source, or in the person adding the source to the article? 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Easy now... I agree with user:Koro Neil that something's got to be fixed; I agree with the IP6-user above that leaving nonsense in the article is not the best way to go about it. There's nothing wrong with pointing out an inconsistency without having the sources to put it right, but the way to go about it is
- Remove the nonsense with a sensible edit summary;
- and/or write a talk page post about the problem (and I do not agree it doesn't work, not on a fairly well watched article like this one - but of course it may take a little time)
- or, of course, doing the work, finding the sources needed, and fixing it.
- For now, I've removed the statement entirely - viz.
- or, in Koro Neils version, highlighting the inconsistency,
- --Nø (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Easy now... I agree with user:Koro Neil that something's got to be fixed; I agree with the IP6-user above that leaving nonsense in the article is not the best way to go about it. There's nothing wrong with pointing out an inconsistency without having the sources to put it right, but the way to go about it is
I think that's a good solution until we have a solid source that discusses what Roman emperors actually did with dice. :) 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Polyhedral Dice Dating
The section on polyhedral dice opens with saying "Around the end of the 1960's"; implying that this is the origin of polyhedral dice. However, this is clearly contrasted by the image of the d20 from Ptolemaic Egypt earlier in the article. I don't know much on the topic so will refrain from editing, but there seems to be something astray. Xx78900 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- That line does not imply anything about the origin of polyhedral dice, only about a the starting point of a modern tradition ("Around the end of the 1960s, non-cubical dice became popular among players of wargames"). "Became popular" ≠ "came into existence". The sentence is technically correct, but not really helpful. The following sentence ("The numerals 6 and 9, which are reciprocally symmetric through rotation, are typically distinguished with a dot or underline.") is about a design detail only relevant to dice with our Arabic numerals, and feels misplaced (or could just be deleted).
- In Ptolemaic and Roman antiquity, both icosahedra (d20) and pentagonal dodecahedra (d12 with pentagonal faces) were known, but far less common than the cubical d6. Other shapes are even less common from these times and regions. The tetrahedra from the Royal Game of Ur are well-known today, but the four-sided and two-sided stick dice from Ur and Ancient Egypt are less well-known (although more common in their own time for all I know). Some ancient chinese dice are 18-sided (and 14-sided, I think?), and we know about 7-sided, 8-sided, and 14-sided dice from medieval Europe (again, insignificant compared to the widespread d6).
- 10-sided dice only came up in the late 19th century IIRC.
- The 1960s brought polyhedral sets into games. Again, the d10 was a late-comer (not a Platonic solid) and only became part of polyhedral sets in the 1980s.
- There is no encompassing, in-depth study about the history of polyhedral dice. I'm still collecting bits and bits of information from diverse sources. There's no simple reference you could slap into the article to cover this stuff. --Jonas kork (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- While it doesn't say anything outright, I personally believe that the absence of a statement referring to a time before the 1960's does /imply/ that that was close to their origin, but I accept that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am and I defer to you.Xx78900 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- If it's misleading, we should change it. Does it sound better now? --Jonas kork (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think you phrased it well. Polyhedral dice are certainly more popular now than in any time in history afaict, and that can be directly attributed to the rise of tabletop games, RPGs especially (and D&D in particular). oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- If it's misleading, we should change it. Does it sound better now? --Jonas kork (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- While it doesn't say anything outright, I personally believe that the absence of a statement referring to a time before the 1960's does /imply/ that that was close to their origin, but I accept that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am and I defer to you.Xx78900 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"Infinite" sets of dice
I don't think disphenoids can be described as an infinite set, since surely they are all the same shape but with different dimensions. Bipyramids and similar sets clearly are infinite sets, since even though they have different dimensions they also have different numbers of faces. Plokmijnuhby (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems disphenoids can be inscribed in a rectangular box with a square base. The height of the box, relative to the side of the base, is a shape parameter - not merely a dimension. So I've undone your edit. PS: See image at Disphenoid.--Nø (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Uncommon odd-numbered dice
There seems to be little mention of less commonly manufactured dice in higher odd-numbered ranges, such as these dice. They are uncommon, seemingly existing for novelty, but many of them are not described or listed on the page, and deserve, IMO, mention due to their rarity and the unique challenges of making odd-numbered dice.
2601:245:4401:6480:35E0:A308:7EC4:57BE (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Those are covered in the "Rarer variations" subsection, as they're just versions of many of those dice with more rounded edges. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- C-Class board and table game articles
- Top-importance board and table game articles
- WikiProject Board and table games articles
- C-Class role-playing game articles
- High-importance role-playing game articles
- WikiProject Role-playing games articles
- C-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles
- Mid-importance Dungeons & Dragons articles
- C-Class Dungeons & Dragons articles of Mid-importance
- All Dungeons & Dragons articles