Talk:Risk (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Risk (game):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Other: Create article List of official Risk game variants stylized after the article: List of licensed Monopoly game boards. Looking to have pictures of the variants boxes and brief summary on those articles. Creation of a section briefly going over major/popular editions of Risk, i.e. castle, lord of the rings, RISK 2210AD

Risk (game) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Risk (game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	This is a selected article of WikiProject Strategy games.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Risk (game) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents 1 Unnamed Talk Header 2 Opinion/Experience throughout Strategy section 3 Poor addition 4 The article is inaccurate 5 It is named "War" in Brazil 6 addition 7 RISK variants? 8 Photos of pieces 9 Die vs. dice and repeated incorrect edits 10 The Gabo Tactic 11 Strike Force Strategy 12 House Rules 13 Linked online sites: NPOV 14 External Links especially Risk 2 15 External links were valuable, but they are gone! 16 Risk for FA? 17 NPOV 18 Territories? 19 Roman World 20 History 21 Dice table 22 Popular culture 23 List of official Risk game boards 24 Dates/Years 25 Area movement 26 Standard setup 27 GA Nomination 28 Italics 29 GA evaluation 30 Dice Probablities 31 Stub sections 32 References 33 List of licensed Risk games 34 Deletion of Popular Culture? 35 Image:Risk_box.jpg

[edit] Unnamed Talk Header

GO IRKUTSK!!!

I prefer Yak Stick :) Surely the rules for the most common version of the game should be more fully included? :porge 14:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What rules are you referring to? If you are referring to the section I removed (below), feel free to clean it up and then re-add it. Of course, you are free to add them if you like, as long as they are not copyvios. —Frecklefoot 14:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion/Experience throughout Strategy section

There is a lot of (as already indicated) unsupported opinion throughout the strategy section. I'm just as guilty of this as previous contributors because I just added a bunch more. How should this be handled? For example, in my experience the following claim isn't true, but I can easily see how it could be true for other players: "Many games degenerate into stalemates between North America, South America, and Africa vs Australia, Asia, and Ukraine, with Europe split between them." Dslotman 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S., who is Gabriel Cerda Balderas? Google's got nothing. Dslotman 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalemates happen pretty easily if you don't play with cards for some reason. But in general, it's hard to see how stalemates are a part of this game. ErikHaugen 09:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the strategies section, other than the dice probabilities. I strongly suspect that it is all original research, and not very good at that. ErikHaugen 09:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. By allowing any strategy, we leave the door open to various terrible pet strategies. Personally I thought that the bullet list was good, do you think we could restore that without this same problem reoccuring? Dan Slotman 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we provide sources? I mean, if I just write down a list of things that I think are good advice, that is "original research," right? I saw an article by a statistician that ran some kind of models to find out the best strategy for Monopoly; the conclusion was you should go for orange or green, get 3 houses on each property, etc. So on the Monopoly page you could say that is a strategy and cite the article. But we can't just write what we think is good strategy off the top of our heads here, right? I suppose you could list things that are suggested by the game instructions or something? ErikHaugen 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are right of course. A fast Google search pulled up a couple board game webpages offering strategy advice, but even summarizing their advice would be plagerism and waste of time. If someone really wants to improve their game they can undoubtedly do their own search just as easily. Dan Slotman 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the strategy section needs a little bit more. I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure my manual for RISK mentions the creation of alliances and cross-boarding in strategy and what not. Even if it isn't in the manual, which I'm pretty sure it is, I still think it needs to be added. As the strategy section stands right now, it is really quite an understatement of basic strategy for anyone who has ever played. Furthermore, everyone knows that you should go after a weaker player to collect his country cards and be able to cash your own in sooner. Perhaps, I'll do some adding of my own in the future. b_cubed 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add anything found in your manual. The current strategy section is covered in the 1993 edition, and as you say, it is very basic. The problem with adding strategies without citing them is that the article ends up with too many strategies and a lot of terrible strategies. Here is a version that had a lot of strategies which were later removed due to original research. This is an article about Risk, not a strategy guide for Risk. Thanks, Dan Slotman 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor addition

I removed the following section since it was:

1. Poorly written
3. Didn't even attempt to follow wiki-formatting standards
4. Seemed to rely on some assumptions not made clear in the rest of the article
5. In short, detracted from the article rather than enhancing it

If you like, you can fix it and add it back into the article. I removed it from the end of the "Risk strategy for the basic Board game with common rules" section, but you can re-add it where ever you feel it is most appropriate. It was added by anonymous user 32.106.194.149. —Frecklefoot 14:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Here are the most common differences found throughout history:

- The connection between the Middle East and Africa does not exist or does exist on the board or as a house-rule does exist or does not exist

- Way to win :

 * domination so capture all 42 territories on the map [old US rules]
 * mission (if checked mission part applies) [old and new UK rules] often
   (e.g. on Microsoft Zone) this is combined with increasing value of card
   sets to increase the speed of the game.
 * capitals [new US rules] (each player chooses one of his territories to
   be his capital. The choices are revealed simultaneously. The objective is 
   to capture all (or some number of) capitals. If you lose your capital, 
   you are not out of the game. (But you aren't doing very well!) ) 

- When are the missions delt (if using mission)?

 * After colors are chosen and before territory cards are delt [new US rules]
 * After territory cards are delt
 * After territory cards are delt and all have placed all armies 

- The leftover missions (if using missions):

 * can be viewed by any player [older rules leave it open]
 * are not revealed and hidden [newer rules]

- If a player gets eliminated

 * his mission is revealed [older rules leave it open]
 * his mission is not revealed and must remain secret [newer rules]

- The following missions are (or arent) being used:

 * Conquer Asia and South America
 * Conquer Asia and Africa
 * Conquer North America and Africa
 * Conquer North America and Australa
 * Conquer Europe and South America and a 3rd continent of your choice
 * Conquer Europe and Australasia and a 3rd continent of your choice
 * Occupy 18 territories with at least 2 armies in each territory
   (often taken out)
 * Occupy 24 territories (no restriction to 2 or more armies in each)
   (often taken out)
 * kill black
 * kill purple
 * kill red
 * kill yellow
 * kill blue
 * kill green

 When using only the "kill" missions it is often used so that if player
 gets killed the one who had this mission wins, this is also called
 paranoia risk.

- If fewer than 6 colours are going to be used in the game then the cards

 corresponding to the unused colours are removed from the deck before 
 missions are given out.

- If you draw your own colour

 * then your mission changes to conquer 24 territories [standard]
 * All mission cards are delt again [houserule]

- if someone else kills the colour you should be killing according to your

 mission:
 * your mission changes to 'conquer 24 territories' [old and new UK rules]
 * you have won, the other player helped you out. [new US rules]

- You can only win:

 * At the beginning of your go
 * At the end of your go [new UK rules]
 * a full turn after revealing your mission and maintaining its conditions in
   the interim
 * At any point, you don't have to be in your go, someone solves your problem!

- the territories are divided among the players:

 * by shuffling the cards and giving each player in turn a card (with 4 or 5
   players 2 players get an extra card) (be sure to exclude the jokers)
 * letting each player in turn choose 1 territory not owned by another player 
   in turn 

- The amount of players decides the amount of armies each player gets:

 * [2 players:40][3 players:35][4 players:30][5 players:25][6 players:20] 
   [ALL newer and older rules except 1959 US rules]
 * every player gets 1 army/territory [1959 US rules]

- On FIRST placement:

 * there is a maximum of 4 armies on 1 territory to place [old UK rules]
 * there is no maximum on how many armies to place in one territory [newer 
   UK and US rules]

- There is always a minimum of 1 army per territory

 Armies are placed:
 * by each player until all say they are done (no special rules) [old rules
   leave it open]
 * in turn, each player may put 1 army on 1 territory that he owns, until 
   all armies are placed [many old and new rules]
 * in turn, each player may put 1 army on 1 territory that he owns, until 
   all armies are placed but the empty territories must be filled first 
   [many old and new rules]

- The turns in a game are :

 * Defend phase and then Attack phase [new UK and all US rules]
 * Attack phases and then Defend phases (all players first do an attack 
   round and then a defend round) [houserule]
 * Defend phase OR Attack phase [old UK and Dutch rules] (this makes owing  
   continents much more important)

- You get armies in the following ways:

 * The total amount of your territories divided by 3, with a minimum of 3 
   and rounded down (14=4) [all versions]
 * Cashed in cards (see below)
   + If you own South America an extra 2
   + If you own North America an extra 5
   + If you own Europe an extra 5
   + If you own Africa an extra 3
   + If you own Asia an extra 7
   + If you own Australia an extra 2

- Where should the armies that you get from owning a continent be placed ?

 * anywhere you like [not stated in rules]
 * in the continent you got the armies from [houserule]

- You must say from which country you attack and which country you are

 attacking.
 * The attacker can attack with the amount of dice that is equal or less 
   than the amount of armies in the attacking country minus 1.
 * The defender can defend with the amount of dice that is equal or less 
   than the amount of armies in the defending country.

- the attacker:

 * when using 3 dices the attacker doesn't have to state anything and after 
   he won he has to move a minimum of 3
 * when using 3 dices the attacker has to say the amount of armies he is
   attacking with and he has to move this amount of armies after he won

- the defender:

 * Has to say before the battle with how many dices he will defend as well 
   as the attacker [US and new UK rules] 
 * Has to use 2 dices except when he has only one army left
 * Has to use 1 dice if he owns less than 3 armies in the defending 
   territory [New Zealand and U.K. rules circa 1990]
 * Can choose AFTER the attacker threw his dices if he wants to defend with 
   1 or 2 dice(s) [old UK rules]

- The dices of both attacker and defender are ranked according to value and

 are compared for each rank. If, in one rank comparison, the dices are the
 same, the defender wins in this rank. If there are ranks comparisons where  
 there is only 1 dice the rank isn't counted. The defender and attacker loose  
 the amount of armies equal to the rank comparisons they lost

- Redeployment

 * There is no redeployment
 * After your turn you may transport 7 armies across your own territories,
   each border-crossing is 1 transportation, the territories should be
   connected, provided that after all such movement there is at least one army
   per territory
 * After your turn you may move armies from 1 country to another country,
   provided that after all such movement there is at least one army per 
   territory
 * ONLY after an attack phase you may transport 7 armies across your own 
   territories, each border-crossing is 1 transportation, the territories 
   should be connected, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [old UK rules]
 * ONLY after an attack phase you may move armies from 1 country to another 
   country, provided that after all such movement there is at least one army 
   per territory
 * After you turn you may move an unlimited amount of armies across your own 
   connected territories, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [US and new UK rules]
 * Only after an attack you may move an unlimited amount of armies across your 
   own connected territories, provided that after all such movement there is 
   at least one army per territory
 * After you turn you may move a group of 7 (or another predefined limited   
   number of armies) through an unlimited number of connected, controlled 
   territories , provided that after all such movement there is at least one 
   army per territory [houserule]
 * Only after an attack you may move a group of 7 (or another predefined 
   limited number of armies) through an unlimited number of connected, 
   controlled territories , provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]
 * After your turn each single army is allowed to move to an adjacent 
   controlled territory, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]
 * After an attack each single army is allowed to move to an adjacent 
   controlled territory, provided that after all such movement there is at 
   least one army per territory [houserule]

- take a card

 * You may take 1 card if you have conquered a country, only one card per 
   turn. 

- cashing in cards

 * You HAVE to turn in cards if you have more than 5 cards so u can defend 
   with 5 cards

- When do you have to cash in cards:

 * You must turn in at the beginning of your turn but you have to attack
 * You must turn in at the beginning of your turn but you don't have to attack
 * You must turn in at the end of your turn
 * You may either turn in at the beginning or at the end of your turn
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you have to attack and   
   all should be placed at once
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you have to attack and 
   the gained armies can be placed gradually during your turn
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you don't have to attack 
   but all should be placed at once
 * You may turn in at any point during your turn but you don't have to attack 
   and the gained armies can be placed gradually during your turn

Note: the last two options leave it open to attack or not attack, in case of not attacking obviously all are placed at once

- If you trade in a card with a country on it you own:

 * nothing happens
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u may place anywhere with a maximum of 2 
   gained by this mechanism
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u may place anywhere with no maximum gained 
   by this mechanism
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u must place in that territory with a 
   maximum of 2 gained by this mechanism [1980 US rules]
 * you get an extra 2 armies which u must place in that territory with no 
   maximum gained by this mechanism

- The card-combinations have the following values:

 * [3*art.=4][3*inf.=6][3*cav.=8][3 diff. ones=10] (a joker can be used as 
   art,inf or cav-card) [standard scheme]
 * [3*art.=6][3*inf.=9][3*cav.=12][3 diff. ones=15] (a joker can be used as 
   art,inf or cav-card) [houserule scheme]
 * first set 4, second set 6, third set 8, fourth set 10 , fifth set 12, sixth 
   set 15, seventh set 20, eight set 25, and so on with each time and extra 5 
  [increasing, UK and US rules] (makes card-sets very important)
 * first set 4, second 5, and then each time 1 more [1980 US rules and new US 
   rules suggestion]
 * the sets pay 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, but then the payoffs decrease 
   again: 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 6, 8, etc. [houserule]
 * the sets pay 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 but after 20 the next payoff is 4, 
   then 6, 8, etc. [houserules] (This can make it more important to be able to 
   cash in sets of cards at the right time)

- If player A kills player B:

 * nothing happens, the cards from player B get on the bottom of the stack 
   [older rules]
 * player A gets all cards from player B and player A has to wait until the 
   next turn to cash in all combinations[new UK rules] (so when a player has 
   weakened himself by killing another he can be killed in turn)
 * player A gets all cards from player B and if player A owns more than 6 
   cards he has to turn in combinations until he has 4 or less [US rules after 
   1970] (this opens a lot of loopholes, see RISK-FAQ)
 * player A gets all cards from player B and if player A owns more than 5 
   cards he has to turn in combinations until he has 4 or fewer [most US 
   editions]
 * player A gets all cards from player B and can now trade in anything he wants
   player A gets all cards from player B but has to wait for the next turns to 
   cash in, he may only cash in 1 set per turn. After he has dropped to less 
   than 5 the normal conditions are valid again. [DESDA]

- Some extra rules are:

 * If an attacker holds the card that shows the territory that is attack from 
   or being attacked he may re-roll any one die on each battle involving that 
   territory. The card is not used up and goes back into the player's hand. 
 * You cannot use more than one card per battle, but may use more than one 
   card during a single turn. Again, this is only for the attacker, not the 
   defender. [1980 US variation]
 * You may donate cards to other players
 * You may trade cards with other players
 * You may throw cards away
 * Only 12 armies per territory are allowed. If during placement you are 
   unable to place some armies, then you lose them [1980 US variation]
 * Use the influence of commanders, or great generals being at a particular 
   battle. Once per turn, each player may change one of the dice he rolled to 
   a six. Thus a roll of 1, 2, and 3 may become a roll of 6, 2, and 3. The 
   rules are clear in stating that this may only be performed by an attacking 
   army [1980 US variation]
 * When there are no armies left in your box you HAVE to attack [houserule]
 * When u have attacked and u receive a sixth card you must put that card back 
   on the bottom of the stack [houseule] 
 * When u have attacked, receive a sixth card (or more) and that is put 
   between your cards, u must put ALL your cards back on the bottom of the 
   stack [houserule]
 * the cards you have saved MUST be visible for ALL players [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices if a dice drops on the floor 
   [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices if a dice lies not in such a 
   postition that the value is obvious (e.g. against the playboard) [houserule]
 * You have to throw again all YOUR dices when you throw more dices than is  
   permitted [houserule]

---

[edit] The article is inaccurate

Risk has been around since 1959 and has seen many different rules and incarnations. ALL the rules setup of board, as described are incorrect, it should be written in a total different way.

Rules have changed during the times, affecting gameplay.

I tried adding the additional rules to at least specify that there are a zillion more things around risk than your simple home board game with a specific set of rule you have at home in your specific country. In another country from risk in another year (going back to 1959) the rules and setup of the board can be very different, ALL official from Hasbro affecting gameplay etc...

Then there are the computer versions which are also from Hasbro and add many additional ways of playing, there are many people playing on the Zone and e.g. it changes the way and some rules.

I could go through the sentences one by one, maybe i should :

"Overview and most common rules"

a) originally the title was overview and rules, i changed it to "most common"

"Risk is a turn-based game for 2 to 6 players. "

a) Risk II of Hasbro makes it NOT turn based but real time b) obviously many extensions have been made to allow many more players c) obviously computer versions allow you to play the game alone

"It is played on a board depicting a stylised political map of the world, divided into 42 territories, which are grouped into 6 continents."

a) many maps played on e.g. Zone (Hasbro) let you use any map you like even create, furthermore there people connect boards, there is castlerisk, lotr risk, whatever other risk.

"To start, each player rolls one die. The player who rolls the highest number plays first and the sequence goes clockwise. etc... "

a) Look in http://risk.pagina.nl at the right side there are links to all rulebooks. There were many different ways and obviously in future versions it will again change.

The part of the strategies is inaccurate and based on the american rules of this version and possibly very cliche. "A common strategy is to secure Australia or South America early in the game and sit back and build up armies" yes...for beginning risk players of the Board Game and using Domination and the current US rules and the current default map and if your are allowed to build up armies. I dont understand why there are only strategies for a specific setup of version it is inacurate. Specifically on this point i would e.g. at least mention "capitals" from the official US Hasbro rules.

The article should be much more specific as in which case, with which version, which year, and with which rules and type of game played.

also (first line): "Risk is a copyrighted board game produced by Parker Brothers, a division of Hasbro."

a) A. Lamorisse "invented" the game in 1957 then it was called "La conquette du monde" (if you have version let me know, i have the maps), 2 years later he sold the concept to Parker Brothers who named it Risk and changed several things ( in the original US rules you just had 1 army on each country to start with). Parker Brothers then was bought by Hasbo and it is not a division but now simply Hasbro Risk. Parker Brothers does not exist any more ( i think, well at least for Risk)

I also would mention the excellent book written about Risk (+500 pages on maps and history etc...)

Wasn't there a game based on Risk called Dr. Hell or something along those lines? Perhaps someone would know better, it was developed between the early-mid 90s. I think it would be a good addition to the Alternate Version section.

[edit] It is named "War" in Brazil

I don't know where to put this information, so I put here and hope someone add it to article.

In Brazil, the Risk board game was released as "War" by Grow (a very well known publisher/company, it also sells many puzzle, strategy and board games). There were "War", "War Junior", "War 2" and I'm not sure, but maybe "War 3".

I never had this board game, and until now I only played it once. So, unfortunately, I don't have details these versions.

[edit] addition

I added the game box and moved the picture inside of it, I have a problem with the gap in the beginning of the page though if someone could fix that. -Damien Vryce 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RISK variants?

Should there be at least a mention of the many weird and wonderful RISK variants? I mean, the individual chess variants sometimes have whole articles dedicated to them. Borisblue 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of pieces

Nice photos of the infantry, cannon, and cavalry pieces. For completeness, pictures of the various versions of the pieces should be included at some point, to show how the look of the game has changed. If someone gets around to it, I'd suggest the above mentioned three pieces could be shown in one photo, all together. Another photo could show the original colored wooden block pieces, which are the best (the plastic infantry piece doesn't remain standing very well). And those awful plastic roman numeral pieces (circa 1980s) could be pictured as well. If you're reading this page, you could probably round up these editions of the game by searching your closets and asking your friends to do the same. --K

[edit] Die vs. dice and repeated incorrect edits

Die is the singular of dice. Proper grammar is "one die, two dice" in the same way that one might say, "One goose, two geese." Please use "die" when the article is refering to a single die; in the same way, please use "dice" when the article refers to more than a single die. Dslotman 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gabo Tactic

I can feel why you chose to delete the strategy, but it isn't bogus. There really is a Gabriel Cerda Balderas, maybe he's a nobody, but he applies a lot the strategy and it works for him. I personally know more people who have applied it and has worked a lot more times. So practically, I'm saying that I feel it deserves to be in the strategy section. Maybe you could change its name, but I feel that it should state who started using it.

Mauricio Porte Santos Alonso Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

P.S. I was the anonimous user that added it for thae first time, then I decided to make an account.

Is this someone who participates in tournaments, or someone who just plays at home? bibliomaniac15 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While the strategy section is currently basically a list of common strategies, ideally they would be cited. I can't speak for the greater masses, but I have never played a game in which anything like the Gabo Tactic was tried successfully. In my opinion, the other strategies are very commonly used (i.e. in any typical Risk game you would see two or more of them followed), so without being able to cite a professional-level Risk player, the more uncommon Gabo Tactic should remain excluded from the article. Dslotman 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You can sign your name automatically by placing for tildes (~) at the end of your comments. Dslotman 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike Force Strategy

In the standard rules, you get only a single Risk card per turn, assuming you conquer at least one territory. The strike force strategy advocated in the linked section relies entirely on Risk cards. In point of fact, nearly everyone will be able to gain a Risk card each turn, making this strategy weaker than any other strategy. The real benefit to a strategy like this is the large number of total territories it is possible to hold. For instance, if a player holds twenty-one countries, that player gets seven reinforcements each turn, which is one more than that player would get for holding Africa. (The Africa continent bonus is three, and you get a minimum of three for territories owned, and Africa does not have twelve territories. Hence a sum of six for reinforcements.) The downside, pointed out in the contribution, is that your undefended territories are very easily conquered. This strategy relies entirely on the passiveness of one's opponents. In my opinion, this strategy is doomed to failure in any game with several competent players, and I recommend it be removed. However, if others have found this strategy to be effective, I will not remove it. Dan Slotman 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House Rules

The standard rules give ample subject matter for this article. If alternate rules are to be added to this article they should be limited to the variations found in the official rule book. Dan Slotman 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linked online sites: NPOV

"Netrisk - Simply the best completely free online risk game for multiple players. No downloads required" Can we get even a bare semblance of NPOV on the off-site link descriptions? This is not a place for advertising, let's just stay informative, eh? --Leperflesh 07:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links especially Risk 2

I think we should remove all non-Hasbro links from this article. Online variants is out of control with link-vandalism. There have been several additions pointing to malware sites. It is tedious to validate the links and irresponsible not to do so. If an enthusiast wants to find online variants, I expect they can use a simple Google search. The lion's share of edits in the last month have been to the variant links and a high percentage have been vandalism. I'll give a couple of days for feedback before I remove them. Dan Slotman 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan,

I think it's really sad that you consider the addition of the online links and especially the Risk II links to be vandalism. So I have removed them.

In your profile you list Risk as one of your favorite games. If you have ever played Risk II, you would realize that it is the only official Hasbro release of the modern internet age.

I notice that you have a link for the wiki vandalism link in your profile. So I will quote...

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

At any rate, I realize that the risk game entry may not be the perfect place on wiki to place an article about the computer game Risk II. So with the help of many others we are in the process of creating a wiki entry specifically for the computer game Risk II.

If you feel the need to delete any online variants or computer versions of Risk, please consider moving them to the newer Risk II page on wiki.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it vandalism. In fact, I consider deleting something that you do no understand/do not agree with, vandalism.

By the way, if you want to play Risk II online, of course you are invited to join us at www.risk2zone.com

Have a really nice day.

Sincerely, BrandonPPP

Hi BrandonPPP, thanks for taking the time to respond. I should clarify my position, since I notice that my intent was misunderstood. First, Risk 2 is the most-vandalized link and was pointing to a non-Hasbro URL. I could not find a legitimate URL with either a Google search or a search of Hasbro's website. I have no problem with retaining this link with a legitimate URL.

Secondly, (and this is of course a matter of opinion) I don't feel that I was jumping to a conclusion regarding the edits to the links, many of which I have alleged were vandalism. If you inspect the page history of the last month or so, you will note that many of the edits have been reverted as vandalism. It is this fact that I am basing my recommendation upon.

In regards to your last point, it was for this very reason that I did not remove the links and instead used the Talk page. In my understanding, a discussion on the Talk page is the prefered approach to this sort of edit. If you feel that the 3rd party links can be maintained, then I don't have any real problem with them remaining a part of this article. However, I would hate to have a guest of Wikipedia be infected with a virus or malware because of a link on this website.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my suggestion, Dan Slotman 15:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Risk II version of Risk definately belongs on this article. That is just my opinion and I sincerely hope that it is allowed to stay. Thanks for listeningDedicatedRisker 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the linked Risk II (http://www.risk2.koreru.com/RiskII-Setup.exe) is a pirate binary. Can someone confirm that this is or is not the case? I'm basing my assessment on the site's unofficial character and talk of no-CD cracks. According to WP:EL, linking to such materials is not allowed. Thanks, Dan Slotman 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to apologize for adding an external link to Conquer Club (http://www.conquerclub.com) in violation of WP:EL. I just read it and point #3 says you shouldn't link to a page that you own or maintain. Now, I understand why you would want to restrict external links to Risk variants that have articles, but at least consider linking to the Online Risk Games on the Open Directory. There are some great web games out there that deliver the Risk experience without having to purchase or pirate a copy of Risk II. Giving readers a clue about their existence does contribute to this article, in my opinion. Thanks, Black001 04:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links were valuable, but they are gone!

I have just realised that the external links sections of Risk Game Wiki has been deleted. This was a great source of information on where to find all Risk variants, clubs, strategy guides and so on.

I think they were very valuable and I am sure there must be others who feel the same.

I understand that link vandalism is an issue, however I dont think that should stop us from having any links. Its as if because someone is going to put grafiti on the wall, we are going to demolish the wall altogether. There must be better ways to do this.

I think, as a minimum, the potential links (starting from those that were on the site) should be discussed and handpicked by the community and then put on the wiki for the benefit of all. New link can be treated the same. After all we want the wiki to be a source of information discovery on all aspects of Risk Game. External links can be very effective.

Any ideas to resolve this? Thanks --Spline101 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue with this was that they violated the WP:EL guidelines, not that they were subject to vandalism. Dan Slotman 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that WP:EL is only a guidline and is subject to interpretation by the community. I had a quick look at the external links that still reside on answers.com. For example there are a few links that provide alternative versions of online Risks. I dont think the primary purpose of some of these sites is only to sell a product. Some of them provide a whole lot of information from strategies to gameplay, etc. In short, for someone who wants to know what the status of Risk is, they are a valuable source. Finding them is not as easy as just googling them. I do research on games, and I always find these links valuable. For example look at chess, it has a number of links similar to what used to be here that are quite valuable. Either our interpretation of the guidelines need to be updated, or the guideline itself needs to be challenged. --Spline101 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the interpretation of WP:EL that I'm going by:

"The article about Risk should contain only external links to official websites and reliable sources that can be used as references. Any other external link should be removed." (Paraphrased from User_talk:Mushroom#External_Links_and_Verifiability)

If the links you've found are to reliable sources that provide good resources for Risk, then they can be linked. Dan Slotman 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the difinition of reliable sources, i think the interpretation can depend on the subject of the article. For example an article on history should certainly rely on reliable sources. Hence, a source that is someone personal website may not be suitable as it is not peer reviewed. This is perfectly understandable.

However, suppose the subject matter is how to play a game. There is no historically accurate way to do this. Everybody may play it differently and may suggest their own unique gameplay. The information they provide can be valuable, but verifiability is meaningless. This suggests that those sites that provide a personal opinion on topics that have no right or wrong answer can still be treated as a good source of information as they show different aspect of a certain concept. Isnt that the whole point of information dissemination. I think the following links satisfy this (and no, i am not trying to suggest them because they are my links):

• Risk FAQ at http://www.kent.ac.uk/IMS/personal/odl/riskfaq.htm provides information and has been around for a long time.
• There are a variety of online Risk games such as Lux Delux http://sillysoft.net/lux/ as an example that contain valuable guides on how to play the particualr online games. Online games are an important aspect of Risk game. Best place to know most about a particular online game, is of course their website.
• Sites that explain strategies such as Risk, Startgies Explained http://riskgame.8m.com/ provide a guideline that can be valuable but dont necessarily need to be peer reviewed to support the article.

These links can be reviewed here and added to the site as see fit.--Spline101 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggested links fall under Self-published sources. However, as you may have noted, WP:RS is a guideline that is to be used with common sense. I agree that "Risk, Strategies Explained" seems like a valuable resource for those interested in Risk. It has the added benefit to linking to many of the more-popular resources and clubs that were necessarily removed from this article. If no one objects in the next day or four, I think you could add the link to http://riskgame.8m.com/ as it would benefit the article. Be sure to reference the Talk page in the edit summary so that it doesn't get immediately reverted. Dan Slotman 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. "Risk, Strategies Explained" does link to other similar sites. Ok, I shall add the link in a few days time as suggested. --Spline101 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense to follow the letter of the law of WP:EL and forbid the linking of the major online risk gaming sites. It really just borders on mindless, pedantic rule mongering. There are a number of reasons to link these sites (1) If I am your average joe who is reading this gaming article, then chances are I wouldn't mind actually playing the game. So why not link to somewhere that the user can play. (2) The nature of the gaming sites requires that they in turn require registration from the user prior to playing the game. Online Risk when played by a number people by its very nature is a slow game that requires thought and diplomacy. That means the games can take days of time to finish. That requires the players to be registered. (3) The no-linking when registering rule was intended to prevent other types of sites from being linked: sites that actually contain information, not provide a gaming service for the very game that an article discusses. (4) Many of the sites are completely free. How exactly are they encouraging the sale of a product when they are giving it away? (5) I can point you to a multitude of gaming articles in Wikipedia that link to sites to play the game that require registration. Why exactly is the Risk article some different those? Bryan Brunton

I don't see anyone here saying the links CAN'T be added back, only that they have to be valid, decent links. Not like some of the ones from before, including at least one that lead to an adware/trojan or whatever it was, that I nearly downloaded and then soon after removed the link. There's no issue with the good links, just not when they're full of useless adware/trojans/dead/spam etc. links. WP:EL are only guidelines and no one here is saying that good links aren't valuable/useful to this particular article.

Feel free to add some links back, just make sure they are good links to relevant resources. I'd also recommend noting on the links if they require registration so people know before clicking the link.

It might also be a good idea to split external links into subsections "Official" and "Unofficial", putting all the Hasbro links into "Official" and other good links into "Unofficial". —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryan, I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I think that WP:EL specifically prohibits links to registration sites so that wikipedia doesn't make links to services. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, the flavor of information it collects is different than a typical website and that is reflected in its link policy. If you were to pull a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica off the shelf, you might note that it only includes references to source material and does not include references to related services. In Wikipedia's case, the source material is limited to secondary sources to prevent original research. If a website does not provide relevant information about the subject of an article, it should not be linked. Links to websites providing services related to an article turns Wikipedia into an advertising agent rather than an information source. People interested in such services can find them in another manner such as newsgroups or hobby sites. Dan Slotman 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I too don't agree with you. I don't believe comparing an online, community driven encyclopedia to some book I pull off the shelf is valid for a myriad of reasons. Furthermore, this article is about a game. If linking to a site where you can play that game is against these pristine and holy source material rules, then the rules are simply broken as they greatly diminish the utility of the encyclopedia. Now, your point is that the purpose of the encyclopedia is not to provide that utility. My point is that particular rule is too strict when applied to games. And you will find that the vast majority of game articles agree with this point. Go to the Wikipedia chess article. Oops, what do you find there? A link to somewhere you can play chess. Go to the Axis and Allies article, oops, there's a link to somewhere you can play that game. Go to the Stratego article, etc, etc, etc. Where exactly does your definition of "advertising" begin and the "relevant information" you can gain about a game by actually playing it end? I think you'll find separating the two is again pedantic rule mongering.

Rather than linking directly to gaming services, I prefer the solution of linking to sites providing solid information, advice, and strategy about a game. These sites usually have a links section to online services. Additionally, as I said before, it is trivial to find these services by using newsgroups and hobby sites. To summarize: WP:EL supports linking to informational sites but not services. As B33R pointed out above, such links would be welcomed.

• I'm curious why you don't think comparing Wikipedia to the most highly respected traditional encyclopedia is valid. Perhaps you could pick three or four reasons as I don't think we've got space for a myriad.
• This isn't the forum to disagree the rules themselves. Posting on the WP:EL talk page would be a better choice if you desire a different set of standards for game articles.
• Please don't drift toward ad hominem arguments by characterizing my interpretation as pedantic. I assure you that while I may occasionally bloviate, I am by no means a pedant. I do like seeing Wikipedia articles stay clean and concise, which includes prefering three to four very good external links over a couple dozen unvetted links.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You know I think we do have space for a myriad. I think the issue is opening your mind up to allow that myriad inside. But in this case we don't need a myrid, just two. The two most obvious, shed-some-light-into-your-gloomy-pedantic-closet reason for not comparing an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to the dusty book that I pull off a shelf is that Wikipedia is (1) living every changing state that can easily be updated, adapted and fixed. You don't put links to smallish, hobby gaming sites that might change over night into books for obvious reasons. Dan, that's what Internet is for. The second reason for putting these external gaming links into Wikipedia as compared to your book is even more simple: what happened last time you tried clicking on a link in a book? Not much. You haven't noticed how well this whole hypertext link thing is working on your computer have you? You go Dan! Keep your Risk page clean while the rest of the Wikipedia gaming articles follow an entirely different sensible approach. Bryan Brunton

Shucks, I thought the reason that Wikipedia didn't link to "smallish, hobby gaming sites that might change over night" was that they aren't good references.

As to your second reason, traditional printed media such as newspapers, magazines, refereed journals, trade manuals, and novels all routinely publish URLs despite the inability to click on them. To beat the proverbial dead horse, the reason that encyclopedias do not publish URLs is that they are reference works which are required to hold a higher standard. By now it is self-evident that we have a dramatic diffence of opinion on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I thank you for your good wishes, but I feel I must point out that I've not been editing Wikipedia for any great length of time, and my contributions to Risk are insignificant when compared to the bulk of work already present when I began. Probably the other anonymous gaming articles you keep refering to are handling their external links incorrectly. In fact, if I looked at your contributions, I could probably figure out which they were and start a big ol' ruckus. However, I have no axe to grind and frankly don't care, so I won't. Have a nice day, Dan Slotman 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What this article really needs is not more external links, but rather a well-written, succinct explaination of the rules and general idea of Risk including good references and source citation. Dan Slotman 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you were fairly good about staying on topic. But what was this whole paragraph you have written about your and my contributions? Utter nonsense. This is relevant to what? Maybe you could just not type that stuff in, because if you don't care, chances are, no one else does.

The higher standard, as purely a reference work, to which you hold Wikipedia is self-defeating and limits the utility of the content. Perhaps at some future date users of Wikipedia will have the ability to toggle off the "Only See Reference Material" limitation? These practical people will realize that only reading reference material can be quite limiting. These will be the people who actually want to play the game of Risk rather than simply reading the rules.Bryan Brunton

It was a post script. This is a fast, jaunty aside with little or no bearing on the previous writing. I did not intend it to reflect on either of our contributions at the time. Rather, it was a gentle suggestion pointing out the largest weaknesses of that version of the article. Dan Slotman 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risk for FA?

I think we should have a peer reveiw, and then try to fix up the article. This is Risk, the classic strategy board game; I'm quite surprised it isn't already Featured or Good. Also, there's a new wikiproject for strategy games; we mainly have comuter game fans right now, and there's room for board game players too. Here's the link if you're interested. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the main points I would like to see addressed:

1. The rules are poorly summarized. The gist of the game gets lost in unnecessary details.
3. There isn't actually an overview of the game.
4. There are too many "Computer implementations" linked. In my opinion this should be limited to just the Hasbro implementation rather than including the dozens of others, but concensus is against me.
5. In my opinion, there is too much trivia. I'm unfamiliar with the amount of trivia usually listed; perhaps this could be moved into a page Risk in Popular Culture or something like that.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that there are too many "computer implementations." I've studied similar pages such as Monopoly and Cluedo and I see that when they mention variants, they stick to the official games or notably variants (e.g. Monopoly mentions (Anti-Monopoly). I can't see any reason for keeping all of these "unofficial" games, especially since they all link to external websites. So, I feel they must be deleted. Thunderforge 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that looks very bad, and is almost useless. Most people never hear about those minor versions. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

A no point of view tag was added to the article by an anonymous editor with IP 71.251.125.43. They gave no justification for this addition, and in my opinion it is baseless. I have removed the tag. If you believe that the article suffers from a point of view problem, please justify your position here. Dan Slotman 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territories?

Is it really necessary to have a table listing all of the territories? I feel that it would be better to delete the table and make a note in the rule differences that the Canadian versions rename three of the territories. Wikipedia isn't a game guide and I feel like a table of territories cross the line, but I wanted to get other opinions first. Thunderforge 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only advantage to the table that I see is that it illustrates why certain continents are worth more than others. I agree with your point that this seems like trivial information. Dan Slotman 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that how the Risk chops up the world is certainly encyclopedic enough for the article. The table is an efficient way to organize this information, the links to the related real-world territories are interesting, and its not wasting space since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see an expansion of that table, to see which real world countries and regions that belongs to each territory. I think it's difficult to understand the borders in the Asian part of Russia. --Boivie 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But would doing all that really be beneficial to somebody who has never played the game (Which is our target audience, isn't it? After all, an encyclopedia is intended to educate those about new topics). I still feel that as it is, the territory table is unnecessary BUT I think that it could potentially be okay if it was expanded with more useful information that doesn't detract from the article. Thunderforge 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are for anybody who wants to learn more about a topic, not just people learning the basics for the first time. I first played risk three decades ago, and I found the continents table usefull enough to want to improve its layout. I would imagine that readers of this article are also a mix of those who want only to know the basics about the game, and those looking for more detailed background information. "What is Irkutsk?" for example. —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, since tables are frowned upon in articles. We could change it to text, but would that make it seem even more like a game guide? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the table isn't adding any useful info, nor is it explaining what the territories have to do with the game. What about this: we scrap the territories table, and add a subsection about the territories under overview. We put it in prose, we might explain territories vs. real countries, setup, differences, then we make a couple sentences that includes a list of the complete territories. We can't get rid of the territory section, but I don't think we should leave it as is either. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we've had such great discussion about this. While MJBurrage makes a good point about helping people to discover more topics (admittedly, I don't know what Irkutsk really is), myself and others still feel that territories in a table form are unnecessary. What if we created a list article about the territories which would explain them in more depth? This way, the information is presented to those who want it, but it is not in this form on the Risk page? Thunderforge 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Clyde's idea was better, because it would be in the article, rather than somewhere else. By the way, it's really easy to learn about Irkutsk. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what we should do. I don't know why I didn't think of it before but I'm sure that we could find someone to draw us up a Risk map, just as they do for country articles. Over the summer I worked a bit on random countries fixing up their administrative divisions. Check out the administrative divisions of Libya here. We could do the exact same thing on this article. b_cubed 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman World

Is there a board game version of risk based on the roman empire? Does any type of risk still come with the old roman numeral peices?

I don't believe so. b_cubed 17:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of "Castle Risk" which was a variation released with older editions of Risk, though this was set in medieval Europe rather than the Roman Empire. Even older versions of classic Risk used plastic Roman numerals to denote the number of armies. Dan Slotman 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I am not a man of plowing a new path to FAs, and I find that Monopoly is a FA and also a board game. It seems that we are missing an important section for this article: history. It's really the only section that is completly missing from the article. I'll help if I can. Clyde (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently added what I feel is an adequate history section. Comments? Thunderforge 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dice table

Why was the Dice probability table removed? I thought it fit well, and conveyed information that many could find useful. —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though I didn't remove it, I think the table is something unecessary for the article, since probablilities, however useful, don't fit in. I believe there is a link that gives you the probablilities somewhere in the article. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it under the rationale that it wasn't something necessarily beneficial to people who have never before heard of the game. Wikipedia is designed to educate people on new topics. Additionally, I felt it didn't flow well with the article (it sort of stood out). I probably should have put a note about it in the talk page after I removed it. Thunderforge 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The dice table was extremely useful. I'm confused as to why it was removed without any discussion on the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.205.125 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the dice table made sense. The dice probability is important in any Risk game for selecting strategies. --Boivie 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to the dice table does not work. If the table was removed then there should at least be a link to it. It is a very useful piece of information for a popular game. I did a search on google and on wikipedia unable to find this info that was once here. Jonmc12 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

I propose to move the contents of this section into its own article. I see it as largely trivial information detracting from the game itself. The monopoly article has done the same thing and is a FA. I plan on doing this in the next day or two as long as noone has any serious qualms. Usually I would just go ahead but there is a fair amount of mutual respect inherent to the maintainence in this article and I would hate to be the one to destroy that aura. b_cubed 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see this happen. Dan Slotman 00:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our peer reviewers disliked the dump-article for popular culture references to list, while this is how our model article Monopoly handles its numerous references in popular culture. Clearly such a list won't prevent FA status, but I doubt that its inclusion strengthens the article's status. Is there any consensus on whether we would prefer to follow the monopoly path or the deletion path? Dan Slotman 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of official Risk game boards

I went ahead and created this article. It needs mega work and unfortunately I'm not too familiar with all the different variants. I've only briefly played 2210, and moderately played Lord of the Rings versions. If you know anything about them and can slide them into the template, and or include pictures of the boxes that would be great. Thanks. b_cubed 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates/Years

Are all the years supposed to be linked? I began doing that, but I'll stop until someone clarifies. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Full dates should be linked to allow user preferences to work. Years by themselves should almost never be linked. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area movement

Removed this sentence as it didn't make sense gramatically or where it was placed. I still think someone should rephrase it and put it in the article though. b_cubed 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 *Risk is played in turns, and uses a form of area movement to regulate them.

I found a place to mention area movement, but it adds another comma-bounded phrase to a sentence that already has too many. Hopefully a better spot can eventually be found. Dan Slotman 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard setup

I have two small comments.

• Right now, the exact number of starting units is specified for every number of players. I think this drifts toward too much detail; in other words, it is important that you start with units, but less important how many that is. This is especially true since the article gives little context as to whether the starting units are many or few in comparison to future reinforcements.
• What are Army Cards? I'm sure this means RISK cards unless more recent editions differ from my own.

Thanks, Dan Slotman 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the army cards; I have a relativly new version, and they are called Risk cards. Should the number of units also be removed? I think we should wait and see if it can get through the GA nomination; Thunderforge will be nominating it soon. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

I nominate this article for Good Article status. I've got to say that you guys could have done it. I'm not some super-strict guy who wants to do everything himself. I just prefer to see them done period. Anyways, the nomination is up. Thunderforge 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

I'm not so sure I like the italics. I think they need to stay for the french version (la conquete du monde) but it just looks awkward for the english RISK in my opinion. Additionally, the monopoly article doesn't italicise monopoly at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B cubed (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It should actually. Every time the article name, or it's equivalent, is mentioned, it's italicized. Shouldn't RISK be lower case though? It might look better. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA evaluation

What is a good article? Let's go down the list of good article attributes and see if this article qualifies...

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

I'm not sure about compelling, but yes it is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers PASS

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

PASS

(c) It generally complies with the Wikipedia Manual of style; specifically, it follows the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation.

PASS

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

PASS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

It would nice to see some references to a games encyclopedia or reference book, but overall PASS.

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations are not mandatory, they are highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.^[1] Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.

PASS

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

The reliability of some of the sources is challengable, but I think it might be impossible to find better sources for some of the info. PASS

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

PASS

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

Could maybe expand into criticle comparison with similar games. Overall, PASS

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

Trivia has been moved to a separate page PASS

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

PASS

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

PASS

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Not exactly stable but no conflict PASS

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

PASS

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Looks good! I'll promote it. ike9898 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dice Probablities

Hey guy's just a head's up, I'm removing the dice probablity table. On the peer review, Plek said it had to go. He and Trebor said Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so I'm removing it. I think these guys know a thing or two about FAs, so it might be good to listen.--Clyde (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance you should check out the peer review. Our reviewers have provided excellent suggestions. Dan Slotman 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it would have to go eventually. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to re-open the discussion on this point. That table is not an instruction manual. It does not tell anyone how to roll the dice or how to win the game. It does not tell how many artmies you need in attacking, when to turn in your Risk cards, it is not a strategy manual. It is factual informaiton about the game and how the game works. For reference, the table is:

Probabilities of winning a dice roll in Risk (various dice combinations)[2]			Attacker
			one die	two dice	three dice
Defender	one die	Attacker wins	15/36 = 41.67%	125/216 = 57.87%	855/1296 = 65.97%
		Defender wins	21/36 = 58.33%	91/216 = 42.13%	441/1296 = 34.03%
	two dice	Attacker wins	55/216 = 25.46%	295/1296 = 22.76%	2890/7776 = 37.17%
		Defender wins	161/216 = 74.54%	581/1296 = 44.83%	2275/7776 = 29.26%
		Both win one	n/a	420/1296 = 32.41%	2611/7776 = 33.58%

I believe it should be added back to the article. It is clearly not outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and it is valuable information for the reader. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is needed. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love this chart. There is something extremely pleasing to be able to see the dice probabilities. However, I think it would be more fitting to merely leave the chart out and sum up what it shows. b_cubed 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This table should be put back up. It's giving legitamit facts about the game and this is what wikipedia is supose to give out. You can't take in down just becuase of one dumbass' opinion without discussing it first. This chart is a great tool for people such as myself, who are programing a recreation of risk.

As I count them, the votes were something like 3 for removal to 3 for inclusion (including you). Secondly, please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Thirdly, if you are implementing your own version of risk, you should implement dice rolling, rather than scaling a random number into the win/lose percentages or something equally ridiculous. (I.e. the chart shouldn't matter to your program—your program's output will automatically match the chart over many runs if it implements dice rolling correctly.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dslotman (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Three to three is not a consensus for removal. It isn't even a majority for removal. Therefore, according to Wikipedia rules, the table should stay. So I've added it back in, but in the "Strategy" section. Val42 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my main problem is that the chart doesn't explain anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't charts included in articles to help explain something significant (or at least a difficult concept to grasp)? In this particular article it is merely thrown in and doesn't really add anything to the article except for a neat chart to look at. Thus, I don't really think it belongs. I looked at the link that the chart came from and the person who created it didn't make any substancial conclusions from it. Feel free to check it out: chart b_cubed 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given an opinion on this previously, but I think the table should be removed. First, for new players, I don't think the table clarifies how dice rolling works. Second, the table sort of "stands alone" in the article now—it doesn't have enough context for interpretation. Third, an advanced player will have a good idea what these numbers are&mdashthere are no surprises. Fourth, pragmatically speaking, a decision to attack in an individual case is very rarely based on the odds. People don't say, "I'd attack, but I only have a 49.3% chance of success." Fifth and finally, a link to the chart will be enough for people who want to pursue this sort of Risk knowledge. Thanks, Dan Slotman 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the problem with the table seems to be that there is no text explaining the table, I've added an explanation for people new to the game. As has been stated above, this isn't needed for the experienced players. Val42 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub sections

I'm not really sure how much I like just leaving blank sections with a stub marker. I think they should be deleted but I think it will only be fair to wait a week and see if anything comes of them. If nothing is added after a week I propose we delete them. Additionally, in regards to the stub in the history section--I spent many many hours poring over web pages via google and that is all the information I got. Personally, I really don't consider that section to be a stub due to the lack of information available. If someone has a book on RISK with historical information, now that would be a different story. b_cubed 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is ugly and not likely to be recitified soon. Also, by convention we don't let a lot of 'placeholders' like this around. If the information turn up it can be added, but the article doesn't have to look like a construction site in the meantime. ike9898 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I added them, and I am personally removing them, but the peer review people made it pretty clear that they think the article is "a paraphrase of the manual." They also said the history needs to be expanded, but you say that isn't happpening, so maybe adding these sections at least lets you know that other people think more content is needed. I'm not sure how that's going to happen since I'm trying to do two peer reviews, and it sounds like you've exhausted all your resources.--Clyde (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

References, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, refs, etc...

What i am trying to get at is that if possible, there needs to be some references to this article if it wants to go any stage further. :) Simply south 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some FAs with one reference every one or two sentences. :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of licensed Risk games

Here is a workspace for a page about all the various offshoots of Risk; once it is complete we can create an article for it. This is similar to what Monopoly has done for their derivative games. Dan Slotman 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Popular Culture?

In the peer review, User:Plek said in answer to my question whether to delete the pop cult section:

I would suggest asking yourself the question: "Is there a better, more interesting way to illustrate the popularity of XXX than showing an endless list of books/movies/TV shows in which XXX is mentioned?" If the answer is "yes", than write about it in brilliant prose. If "no", then delete the section altogether. Said endless lists are just magnets for trivial, dull, unverifiable and non-notable edits, that really add nothing of value to the subject (i.e. who cares if Risk was played by this-and-this character in that-and-that TV show?). --Plek 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it for now to prose, but suggest it's deletion. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's already prose, I was confused with the article, which should, IMHO, be deleted as well. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Risk_box.jpg

I took a picture of the box. Should it should go at the top, and the other moved down, or go in the "Official board games" section? · AndonicO ^Talk 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)