Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:03, 13 December 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

History of Monopoly received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (24 September 2006 to 30 October 2006)
• Archive 2 (next to start)

Article title "run-off"

As there are five votes each for keeping the current title and moving it to History of Monopoly (game), I'm going to ask for one more round of voting, and try to establish a consensus. If we either leave the title or move it, I can foresee an edit war due to the lack of consensus under one proposal or the other. So, please, cast a support vote for either of the two proposals underneath. Reasoning for either has been given (see the Talk archive), but if anyone has anything constructive to add, please feel free to do so below. --JohnDBuell 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep the current title

1. Support --JohnDBuell 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Trebor 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. "History of the game Monopoly" works as well. Gracenotes § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: I believe that this article naming is just about akin to History of the name Azerbaijan. I would prefer that over History of Azerbaijan (name). 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Support -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support -- For the clarity and lack of any ambiguity. Redirects can handle cases of consistency. Fieari 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Change title to "History of Monopoly (game)"

1. Support — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) — Personally I much prefer the current title and can cite plenty of reasons why, but the main article is "Monopoly (game)." "History of..." is merely a prefix and should no change the main title reference. Ergo, "History of" + "Monopoly (game)." If there's going to be a debate, then it needs to be about the name of the main article (with any change/decision reflect here). P.S. Since I haven't participated in the debate to this point I should mention Monopoly is my favorite board game of all time (with many, many hours and days and weeks and... of play time).

   The only reason I disagree with your logic is that the article's content could be misconstrued as one about a game called "History of Monopoly". It sounds silly, but the current title avoids ambiguity. The main article is about a game; this article is about a history. Instead of having (game) potentially being seen as modifying all words prior to it, we can avoid that by having the article's title be "History of the game Monopoly". Of course, if you wanted to be specific, you could say "History of the board game Monopoly." Gracenotes § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps the main article should be "The Board Game Monopoly", the current disambiguation of the main article is not reader-friendly. The main and history of titles really should match, or if not, it should be decided in discussing both together to reach a final consensus. (As in, for consistency, what title would work for both the main and "history of" articles which would be suitably unambiguous for both?" IMHO, of course. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   If I were going for consistency, "History of Monopoly (game)" would be the most ideal title. But I'm not going for consistency, because I believe that consistency needs to be sacrificed for clarity. The latter of which (in my opinion) is somewhat more valuable. Just my 0.015670297 euros. Gracenotes § 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   As I said, my personal preference is for the current title—of course, my two cents came down on the side of consistency. :-) Clarity of the title leads to confusion in its finding. (I for one am now accustomed to typing "History of" in front of the name of an article to get more information.) "The Game Monopoly" would be fine for the main article, then "History of the Game Monopoly" here. It would be a stretch to think that someone meant statistical game theory applied to the development of monopolistic economies and the history thereof. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   This argument applies just as well in both directions. The game is also not called "the board game Monopoly", just as much as it is not "Monopoly (game)" or "History of Monopoly". siafu 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Support as before. siafu 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, because it should follow the name of the main article. Tuf-Kat 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, as before, and because “board game” is irrelevant to classify games. Juiced lemon 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, for the second time. CG 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, seems to fit wikipedia's style Yavoh 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, the parenthetical description is used only when there is a conflict with another page or when context is necessary. Moving it to History of Monopoly (game) is unnecessary. Arguing that the article on the game is Monopoly (game) and so this should refer to "Monopoly (game)" misses the point of what disambiguation means. It doesn't change the title of the subject, it's just a technical convention to deal with the technical problem of being unable to have two different articles at the same page name. (Different software can do this, but the way Misplaced Pages is set up we can't.)

Incidentally, is there any reason the article is not at History of Monopoly? The "the board game" part of the title seems superfulous. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is in the archive and essentially concluded it would be too similar to History of monopoly - an article on business. Trebor 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think that's necessary on technical or other grounds, but I didn't participate in that discussion. :) I added a disambiguation link to the top of History of monopoly, since I suspect many people will search for that and get lost looking for this article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad pictures

The pictures have suddenly been changed to ones of genitalia... what is it?~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals at their evil work. Unforunately, I'm not sure how to fix the damage.... RobertAustin 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised, needless to say, when I clicked on the featured article. In the future, Misplaced Pages should lock unregistered users from editing featured articles... it always happens.

The Edit link doesn't display the source code for the images. The picture is repeatedly displayed, so that rules out changing the picture "BoardGamePatentMagie.png" (or whatever the first image's URL was) to the vandalized one... Rangi42 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Locking or semi-protecting featured articles when they are the Featured Article of the Day has been a contentious topic for some time. I don't see any resolution coming for this any time soon. For that matter, there are some users who feel that fewer and fewer anon edits should be allowed. --JohnDBuell 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We generally do not protect Today's FA. One good solution is to add the day's FA to your watchlists and help to revert the vandalism that hits it as quickly as possible.--Kchase T 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't people who do this even once get ip banned from editing? I for one, am tired of trolls who feel it's neccessary to be dicks and vandalize featured articles. One example was the featured San Francisco article, where someone deleted everythign and added "home to faggots worldwide" -- pissed me off to no end

Those pictures....

I think I got rid of them :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.148.84.73 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you good sir, they were literally an eyesore

The First Paragraph

Why does the first paragraph not say what country it is talking about? It could be talking about Indonesia for all i know. Shouldn't this have been read before putting it on the front page? *sigh* Cokehabit 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a board game, originally developed in the USA, which IS mentioned in the first paragraph. The introduction is no more specific than that because of the game's international history. Adding geography to a non-geographic subject would seem to make no sense. --JohnDBuell 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Further evolution of game play

In the Further evolution of game play section, it mentions that the rules of Monopoly have remained rather stagnant over the years. However, no mention is made in the article (even later when it mentions the variations on Monopoly) about the special rules that have been instituted in the newer variations of the game.

For example, the Looney Tunes: Official Classic Cartoon Edition of Monopoly includes the following rule variation: doubles take on extra meanings, or "Looney Tunes effects." Extra tasks can be carried out depending on the value of the dice roll (double ones, double twos, etc.). --Tim4christ17  01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That actually is in the text and has been for some time: "When creating some of the modern licensed editions, such as the Looney Tunes and The Powerpuff Girls editions of Monopoly, Hasbro included special variant rules to be played in the theme of the licensed property." --JohnDBuell 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Im concerned about the images on the top of the page. I can't seem to remove them, and I am concerned that leaving up the page will do damage to WIkipedia's reputation. Until it can be fixed I think it should be taken down. Bok269 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing images, image links and other such nonsense are common tactics of vandals. This hasn't been the first page to have been so affected and it will not be the last, either. Action should only be taken to revert changes of images, and blocking on the most disruptive users, as is done already. --JohnDBuell 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the most retarded article name I've ever seen.

Needs moving to History of Monopoly. Honestly, the current wording is awkward, ugly, unnecessarily long, and generally retarded. — Werdna talk criticism 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review