Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dice

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 6 January 2021 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dice/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:14, 6 January 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dice/Archive 1) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Vital article

Former good articleDice 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
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 28, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
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.
WikiProject iconBoard and table games Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconRole-playing games High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconDungeons & Dragons Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
D&D to-do:

view


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Template:WP1.0
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis 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:
/ 
Note icon
This article was copy edited by Quadell on 13:47, 29 September 2013.
Note icon
This article was copy edited by Greatpopcorn on 01:13, 13 November 2013.

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)
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)

"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)
Categories: