Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance cards

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chance cards

Chance cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Community Chest cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This nomination is also including Community Chest cards. Their page content seems to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, the majority of which is devoted to listing the text on each card. Information pertaining to the dates of their introduction already exists in the article History of the board game Monopoly. ~ PseudoSudo 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not entirely true. What's mentioned in the History article has to do more with which artwork was implemented when (Uncle Pennybags/Mr. Monopoly starting in US editions in 1936, but not in most of the rest of the world until later, and even then only on the game's logo). A major point that tried to be made in the two articles is how the cards, and thus the gameplay, changed from 1933/34 through 1936 in the United States, and how further changes were made from US to UK editions (and elsewhere), because of cultural differences. The articles deliberately do NOT go in depth into EVERY variation made for EVERY edition of Monopoly since the 1990s, as that would be ridiculous and an absolute violation of the point you made. They are currently brief lists, and works in progress. My only OTHER suggestion would be to merge them with information about selection/retirements of tokens (and the UK wartime spinner, etc) into an article along the lines of History of Monopoly game equipment. --JohnDBuell 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bwithh 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep but develop it, the current version of the page is not acceptable Pernambuco 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nom is quite mistaken: these do not violate WP:NOT by a long shot. The articles discuss key aspects of Monopoly, the seminal board game. The Monopoly article is extremely long. For that reason, separate articles are absolutely required to cover Monopoly fully. For an example, see History of the board game Monopoly. --JJay 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia does not need "to cover Monopoly fully" and WP:NOT for that purpose. Wikipedia needs to cover Monopoly "encyclopedically", that is, describe how reliable sources discussed it and how it influenced culture, game design, any gaming hobby that may have existed then, the modern gaming hobby, or other things that might pass the "hundred year test". Changes in particular cards -- cards which do not drive the game and rarely have more than a minor influence on who wins or what choices players make next -- don't belong in this category, unless multiple sources clearly demonstrate that they do. Barno 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into the main Monopoly article and redirect after improvement  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have to disagree here - I'm in full agreement with what JJay states (which is why these articles got forked off in the first place, along with the history article, which is an FA, and the pop culture references article, which is also a work in progress). The Monopoly article is TOO LONG to take on any more material. Again, I'd go for a "Monopoly Equipment" article, but I wouldn't upmerge these into Monopoly (game) or History of the board game Monopoly, simply because of the length. I just pared down the lists to reflect the major differences between the 1935/1936 US editions and the 1936 UK edition, the two most widely known versions of the game in the English speaking world. Cards in other editions (South African, German, French) have based their texts on the UK edition. --JohnDBuell 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Create Monopoly equipment article and merge these articles, along with additional information from the main Monopoly article per previous comments. Monopoly article is too long to take on the additional material. Otto4711 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The monopoly game has been heavily analyzed in reliable sources. The contents of the individual cards are not too small a detail. YechielMan 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and develop per JJay and JohnDBuell. Newyorkbrad 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• M E R G E List cruft! Why is this even a discussion??? MiracleMat 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• What kind of a comment is that? These articles are not lists. And where exactly do you think the articles should be merged? That needs to be specified. I agree with you, though, that this should not be a discussion. AfD is singularly unsuited to address complicated editorial questions involving featured articles. I'm willing to venture that few of the commenters here have read any of our extensive coverage of Monopoly. Given that, drive-by comments by editors who have devoted one or two minutes to the issue do not serve much purpose. It is insulting to the editors who have devoted extensive time to working on the monopoly articles. The articles should not have been nominated without a prior discussion on the article talk pages. --JJay 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JJay. The articles require improvement rather than deletion, and the merge candidates are too large already. Resolute 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The general gist of the Chance and Community Chest cards could be elaborated on in the main Monopoly article better, but this listcruft is unnecessary. Krimpet 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both articles per guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Monopoly is widely noted, but there's nothing in this article (nor in its Community Chest brother) that helps a non-fan understand anything important about the game. I don't see any information describing how the card changes affected gameplay, and as a veteran gamer I disagree that someone knowing both versions would make any strategic or tactical changes between versions. I disagree with the opinion that these are "not too small a detail". Barno 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These articles (as has the history article) have been developed wholly independently of ANY WikiProject. I'm offended that anyone would want to impose ONE project's guidelines on any article or series of articles. One project should NOT decide content or rules or guidelines to apply everywhere, not even EVERY game article. And even if these were developed by project members, exceptions are, should be and will be made. These two articles were developed with the game's early history in mind, modified to reflect cultural differences, and I'm pleased to see others calling for either a more in-depth view of the game's elements as a historical whole and others calling for a broader cultural view. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to "impose one project's guidelines" on this, I'm trying to hold it to Wikipedia's core standards. The guidelines at the BTG project are clarifying how those core standards apply in more detail to boardgame articles, which is why I referenced them instead of WP:V or WP:NOR. If the significance of these component changes in the game's early history is so significant that it should be featured in encyclopedic (not fansite) coverage, then you need to show why this is strong enough to be an exception. (I agree that the guidelines have flexibility for special cases, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a special enough case.) This is "excessive detail not appropriate for an encyclopedia" in my view as a gamer and as an editor; show me where reliable sources demonstrate great impact of the "cultural" "historical" differences, or stop being offended by people upholding WP policies. Barno 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: After a day-and-a-half of this discussion, the nominated article still contains only trivia about minor component changes, and only one reliable source, a book about the game's early history. The article still contains no claim of notability, no content about cultural influence, no content about how gameplay might be affected, no references indicating that anyone except the single niche author has ever cared, not even a link to anything on BoardGameGeek or other modern gaming reference sites. I would consider this article (and its Community Chest twin) candidates for speedy deletion were they not part of a Featured Article walled garden worked on by sincere (though policy-weak) editors. Barno 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If I were to execute a create and merge (as has been suggested by several editors), then the two existing articles would wind up being redirects, and the AfD notices (while not necessarily deleted) would not be visible. That's in violation of the spirit of the process, as near as I can tell, and I'd rather let the process run its course rather than trying to conclude it prematurely as you seem wont to do. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nom. This article is no more necessary than an article on the wheelbarrow or top hat pieces. What really needs to happen is a serious copyedit to prune the main Monopoly (game) article. Reducing the verbage and some of the unnecessary detail would do away with the need for an article on every game piece. Agent 86 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If you really feel that way, put Monopoly up for Featured Article Review. Many of its sections have been laid out and developed in an attempt to mirror the structure and layout of the article on Chess, which has been an FA for about eight months more than Monopoly has. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep What these articles need is expansion to include other countries, not deletion. The changes are a significant social index. DGG 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Create a new article as suggested by Otto4711 and merge in. Doesn't need its own article but shouldn't go on the already overstuffed main page. DB (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Create Monopoly equipment article and merge these articles, along with additional information from the main Monopoly article per Otto4711. Winterborn 06:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both: whether in own right or per User:Otto4711's suggestion. The articles record and provide some explanation for variations in the rules of a well-known game. -- Simon Cursitor 08:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge The article although different certainly should be kept but would read better when merged with the main monopoly article. It doesnt really stand on its own very well, and there has been a considerable amount of wokr done on the article, it is by no means just a list of the cards so deserves to be kept. As said above it does contian useful info--PrincessBrat 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per many reasons stated above. -- Kevin ^(TALK) 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep please per many reasons above the article needs expansion not erasure yuckfoo 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into the article about the game itself. /Blaxthos 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, or alternatively what Otto4711 said would work well if anybody does do that. Mathmo ^Talk 13:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both per JJay. --- RockMFR 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Dismiss this AfD without preduice (ie Keep for now). Although I'm not convinced that these articles should stay, I agree with a couple other commenters that AfD is not the proper forum. I'd suggest taking this to their talk pages (which have a total of 4 lines of text between the two of them, so there's definitely room) and everyone who's interested can hash this out there. If a AfD is needed then, let's try again. - grubber 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.