Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:35, 23 December 2019

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 28, 2005 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
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:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Board and table games Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Role-playing games High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dungeons & Dragons Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. D&D to-do: edit history watch purge view Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Merge : Various articles Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More... Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) Template:WP1.0

Template:Find sources notice

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by Quadell on 13:47, 29 September 2013. This article was copy edited by Greatpopcorn on 01:13, 13 November 2013.

Average dice throw

Section 5.1.2 of the article states:

>>> A variation on the standard die is known as the "average" die. These are six-sided dice with sides numbered 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, which results in the same average result as a standard die (3.5 for a single die, 7 for a pair of dice), but have a narrower range of possible values (2 through 5 for one, 4 through 10 for a pair). They are used in some table-top wargames, where a narrower range of numbers is required. <<<

To roll a dice is a random event/process and in statistics, these events are not called average result, expected value would be the suitable/proper team. In short, to call it average result would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the use means. It's not talking about likeliness of outcomes, which, but the actual average (arithmetic mean) of all the possible sums. The use of the technical term needs better explanation. oknazevad (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oknazevad,

I don't agree.

The paragraph it not referring to the likelihood of outcomes. The likelihood for each number for throwing a dice is 1/n. For a dice n=6. So the probability is 1/6.

To roll a dice is in probability theory an event described by a uniform distribution. To find an average of a UD you have to sum up all possible outcomes and divide this by the count of outcomes:

n=6

1+2+3+4+5+6=21

21/6= 3.5

This average what you get is called expected value.

To get the expected value of throwing a dice in real you would have to roll the dice an infinite amount of throws than calculate the average of all throws.

It doesn't matter if a 6 sided dice has 1-6 on its sides or 2,3,3,4,4,5. The expected value for both variants of dices is 3.5.

Further, you state, the use of this technical term needs better explanation:

This means you agree it is the proper term, but it's too difficult to understand? If the term expected value needs a better explanation what about to change the term into a hyperlink referring to an online encyclopedia (e.g. Misplaced Pages) explaining it? Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

to Oknazevad:

I got to know this stuff in Quantitative Methods - Statistics at Koblenz University of Applied Science (Germany) the Faculty of Business and Management. Thanks to Prof. Dr. G.S.

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oknazevad,

you did not make any comment to my explanation: You did not write, I am wrong or I am right or somewhere in between. Your edit summary says:

No, the sum of the possible outcome values divided by the number of possible outcomes is an arithmetic mean, not an expected value. That's the point of the passage.

That's wrong, why? Look at my next-to-last post in the Talk section related to the article. Referring to your explanation, it all comes down to a random event. Additionally, you reverted my edit instead of doing a new one will deteriorate some of my edit statistics. It seems like, you try to tease me on purpose.

If you got the courage to challenge me, defuse my arguments.

Let's assume you throw a 6 sided dice: You could calculate the expected value before you throw the dice as every outcome got the same probability. You could calculate the average e.g. after you throw the dice 9 times:

2 4 3 2 3 3 6 2 3

Generated with the randbetween function from MS Excel 2013 The sum is 28 / 9 = 3.111111... The 3.111111... is the average. The 3.5 is the expected value, even if your average differentiates, you knew this figure even before you threw the dice. The paragraph doesn't state how often you would throw and the outcome so it is referring to the expected value.

Hereby I provide a source to calculate the expected value from a dice throw:
http://www.mathwords.com/e/expected_value.htm

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I am having difficulty following your argument because of your grammar. Regardless, as I said in my edit summary, the sentence is about the name of the variant, which derives not from looking at the outcome of rolls, regardless of how many, but merely the average of the values of the faces, merely that (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 is the same as (2+3+3+4+4+5)/6. There's no statistical probability involved, so any mention of expected outcomes is irrelevant. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

World Dice Day

I wonder if it would be interesting to add something about the World Dice Day, held on 4th december each year?

DrNoD (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, too trivial. If every Misplaced Pages article mentioned it's honorary day that is not widely known it would make the encyclopedia look silly. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Remove the nonsense with a sensible edit summary;
2. 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)
3. or, of course, doing the work, finding the sources needed, and fixing it.

For now, I've removed the statement entirely - viz.

Dicing was even a popular pastime of emperors. Letters by Augustus to Tacitus and his daughter recount his hobby of dicing.

or, in Koro Neils version, highlighting the inconsistency,

Dicing was even a popular pastime of emperors. Letters by Augustus (died 14 AD) to Tacitus (born ca 56 AD) and his daughter recount his hobby of dicing.

--Nø (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• 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
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors