Talk:History of the board game Monopoly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star History of the board game Monopoly is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2006.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Last sentence of introductory section is unclear

I quote it here: "Other cities, territories, states and countries, and licensed properties have also become variants and editions of Monopoly." What exactly does this intend to say? Cities and territories cannot literally become editions of Monopoly; they can become the basis for an edition. If that's all that's meant by this sentence, it's redundant with the previous sentence and should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edonovan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 December 2006.

Agreed - I've removed the sentence and changed 'cities' to 'locations' in the previous one to cover any versions not based on a single city. Barnabypage 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question was NOT part of the FA version of the article (and yes it only introduced redundancy and confusion), so sincere thank yous to Barnabypage for removing it. --JohnDBuell 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 T § 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)
  6. Support - History of Monopoly (game) introduces an unnecessary ambiguity. Perhaps a compromise at "History of the game Monopoly"? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support -- SailorAlphaCentauri 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 T § 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 T § 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)
  7. Support, unnecessarily long and awkward title. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, more conventional. Tuviya 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support for lack of better options. — Werdna talk criticism 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, History of Monopoly (game) logically follows Monopoly (game). timrem 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. support ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, History of Monopoly (game) reads as if it is about a game called "History of Monopoly", creating ambiguity rather than disambiguity as the modifier is intended. Although the current title isn't optimal, I prefer it over this. -- kenb215 talk 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Per Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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, Wikipedia 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

holy moly, I opened the page on a projector to a room full of college kids. We're still laughing

Why doesn't Wikipedia just have the featured article link to a specific version of the FA? They woulnn't have to lock the page this way.
Because the powers that be hope that there will be constructive additions made to a Featured Article on the day that it's "Today's Featured Article." --JohnDBuell 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)
It is a terrible start to an article: The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 1900s. Where? How? References?
Yes we do give references. But you have to read them yourself to get the information you're asking for... -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on original designs by Elizabeth Magie - If it can be traced back to Elizabeth Magie how come there were several designs over 30 years? Why is her name in there if the origin, date and original designer isn't known? When were her designs made? Which of the several designs were hers?

That's because Monopoly was like a wikipedia article. Magie made the first few versions, then other people tweaked it over 30 years. So the name and the design both changed as time went by. It's still basically the same game though. Very much like a Wikipedia article really. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean it is very bad and never should have been on the front page. Next time a bit more thought should go into picking it as a featured article because it certainly isn't one of the best articles in wikipedia as the {{featured}} suggests. If the start was changed then it would stand a chance but not as it is. Cokehabit 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, so you say. Others disagree however. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
First paragraph is just fine, and I found the article particularly illuminating and entertaining. Well done all around! Based on Cokehabit's moronic screen-name, I think we know how much stock to put into their opinion.68.146.198.203 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If one really is confused about what "Monopoly" is, well, there is a link to that article in the first sentence. You'd have to have a drug-addled mind or a low IQ not to realize this is an article amplifying another one.68.146.198.203 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Introductions generally have two styles. One style is to summarize EVERYTHING within the first two-three paragraphs (an "Executive Summary" style), which would allow the reader to skip reading the entire article. The other style is to introduce many of the ideas and concepts covered in the first two-three paragraphs, and hopefully entice the reader to read on and learn more about the ideas and concepts through the body of the article. For the introduction section here, I chose the latter style. --JohnDBuell 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 talk 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)

[edit] 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)
I got it fixed. Apparently the guy named the image to something along the lines of monopoly, in order to prevent people from finding it easier. --Jazz Remington 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I definately agree that the damage should be reverted and that be it, but the problem was that seemed impossible. I thought it best that the admins should take it down all together until it could be fixed. But, as long as its fixed Im happy. Bok269 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone put a disturbing image up on the top of this page and I don't know how to edit it because i don't use wikipedia much for editing and stuff but i feel itshould be known.thanks. 204.194.98.16 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Joseph M

[edit] Title is suboptimal

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

Seconded. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Monopoly is an economic concept and an article about the "history of monopoly" would have some American readers, for example, expecting to see a discussion beginning with the Sherman Act. In any event, though, History of Monopoly is a redirect to this article (with a disambiguation at the top), so no harm done. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as a problem. "Monopoly" as a singular common noun lacks case: we say, 'ADM has a monopoly on lysine,' not 'ADM has monopoly on lysine," so the economic article in question would be better titled "History of monopolies". User: Cyrus.pilcrow
Werdna and Wooty: You're entitled to cast your votes at the discussion that's been going on for some time. --JohnDBuell 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the vote. Thanks. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the discussion above, I don't see History of Monopoly there. — Werdna talk criticism 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It had only two votes (see the archived talk page). The two proposals above had an equal number of votes - and on a no consensus decision the best thing to do in my experience is to cut down on the number of options. --JohnDBuell 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - the current name is perfect. 68.146.198.203 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents

This article is fantastic. Sincerest compliments to all who worked on it. Paul 06:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded! Cool topic. Wickethewok 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Excellent work. (Coming from a lurker who never says very much.) 68.253.133.63 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes great article well done everyone.

Oui, c'est utile. (Okay, okay, I'm trying.) ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 11:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please can you answer the following question: if a player agrees to sell a propery to another player and the property is already charged to the bank does the purchaser take the property as it were free of incumberances or in its charged form? I have always assumed that it's for the vendor to discharge the liability to the bank (as would be the case in an ordinary land transaction in real life) but I can appreciate that there is a counter argument. Any views?

Dr Spam (MD) 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The property passes to the new owner encumbered by the mortgage. From the rules: "the owner may sell [a] mortgaged property to another player at any agreed price. If you are the new owner, you may lift the mortgage at once if you wish by paying off the mortgage plus 10% interest to the Bank. If the mortgage is not lifted at once, you must pay the Bank 10% interest when you buy the property and if you lift the mortgage later you must pay the Bank an additional 10% interest as well as the amount of the mortgage." Barnabypage 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This also applies to mortgaged properties acquired through the bankruptcy of another player. Lets say I'm playing against someone who holds two of the railroads (amongst other properties). If they go bankrupt to me, and those two railroads are mortgaged, I either owe $20 immediately to the bank for acquiring the properties, and another $220 when I unmortgage them, or I could just pay $220 up front to the bank and unmortgage both of the railroads immediately. It all depends on how much cash you have on hand. --JohnDBuell 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of introduction

User:MrBeast objected to the length of the introduction and moved a paragraph. However, that paragraph should have been rewritten to flow into the text where it was pasted, as it "felt out of place." But I wanted to point out that a three paragraph lead for an article of this length is the commonly accepted guideline. See WP:LEAD - under Length, it actually says that three-four paragraphs would be acceptable (though in practice, most editors prefer three paragraphs when the article is in Peer Review and becomes a Featured Article Candidate). So, I'm simply stating that I disagree, and there's my reason why. --JohnDBuell 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traced back to the early 1800s?

The opening line opines that the game can be traced back to the early 1800s, but nothing (I've found) in the article substantiates that claim. We hear of Anspach and much of the early history of the game was "rediscovered" but we don't get to hear any solid history before 1903. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk)

1900s. The game did NOT exist in any recognizable form before 1903. Whomever changed it was simply being a vandal. --JohnDBuell 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's Monopoly promotions

McDonalds has introduced Monopoly promotion games, which is played online with game pieces obtained from specific purchases. It would be interesting to see indepth information about that included in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Normannen (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 December 2006.

The history from 2001-present is covered in McDonald's Monopoly but nothing (yet) on the 1980s/1990s versions of the promotion. The McDonald's version of the game started with stamps that had to be licked and stuck to the playing board. Recent versions use self-adhesive stickers. --JohnDBuell 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_the_board_game_Monopoly_cd1b.html"