Talk:Dice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dice has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles 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 reassessment.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Dice as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polish, Portuguese or German language Wikipedias.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Various

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.198.133 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This should also mention the cooking term somewhere: dice, diced (carrots), dicing. Or should this become a disambiguation page?

Of course, wikipedia is not a dictionary. But there are any number of jargon words involved in cooking, and they could all be listed under one page like culinary jargon or whatever.

Or we could make cooking/dice or culinary/dice or something else. Other possible disambiguation pages could be roast, blend, boil, pot, stew....

I'm not sure which method is most appropriate. Opinions? - Rootbeer 2002-04-04

I like the idea of a page on culinary jargon. Or could it be integrated into a broader page on cooking itself? Other opinions? Koyaanis Qatsi

Why is there a discussion on a page for culinary jargon in the talk section of dice?24.71.223.140 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In the description it says that most dices have 1, 2, 3 in clockwise direction; do I see it correctly that this is not the case for both the dices in the picture? Bob.v.R 22:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Bob: the sequence from 1 to 2 to 3, on the die showing those faces, is a counter-clockwise sequence around their common vertex, contrary to what i consider the logical meaning of the article's wording. (And the corresponding sequence from 6 to 5 to 4, being clockwise around their common vertex, implies counter-clockwise when viewed toward the common vertex of 1,2, and 3.) Flipping the graphic could explain it for the top-of-page picture, but lettering in one photo establishes that at least that one shows several dice that are counter-clockwise from 1 to 3.

I've IDed an editor who added that info, and hope for clarification of the basis for it. --Jerzy(t) 03:06, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Ancient roman dice do not follow this pattern - Octane818

In the final paragraph of the section "Uncommon dice", it mentions the term "binomial distribution" twice. Neither of the two cases under discussion have a binomial distribution. See for example, the binomial distribution entry (actually, the entry for binomial distribution contains a minor error as well, but not nearly so egregious as this one). The only way to make sums of dice have a binomial distribution is to label the faces with nothing but 0's and 1's (and make the fraction of 1's the same for each die in the sum). I think the best thing to do would be just remove any reference to binomial distributions. -- Glen Barnett 137.111.13.34 02:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 2 sections on polyhedral dice should be merged; the information is mostly redundant. However, I am not sure not to go about doing so. 70.160.230.135 15:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knucklebones

The current text includes

Dice probably evolved from knucklebones, which are approximately tetrahedral.

My trick memory says "knucklebones of oxen", but part of the trick is that i have no memory of why, nor opinion that it is true. In the context of slave-holding cultures, "knucklebones of humans" is not unthinkable, and plausible to infer with the current wording, especially since we worry so much about knuckles of humans and so little about other species' knuckles. How about a knowledgeable clarification. (BTW, a Google search of WP turns up only ads, including "Sexy Knucklebone Singles". What a country!.)
--Jerzy (t) 20:55, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of dice but I quirked an eyebrow at the suggestion they started from 'knuckle bones' - as these don't really exist - for humans at least. In the human sense knuckles are the joints between the metacarpal bones and phalanges. And none of these bones are remotely tetrahedral - they are basically small versions of the cartoon 'doggy bone' picture. For quadruped 'hands', some of their 5 digits have disappeared during evolution with the remainder being strengthened, all by varying degrees depending on the animal. In the horse only one sturdy finger remains, upon which they stand. The vestigial digits might become stubby enough to be dice shaped; I suspect not though. They most likely used carpal/tarsal bones (of the wrist/ankle), some of which are distorted cuboids in shape.

--Shadeofblue 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


It was not so much as knucklebones that were used as ankle bones. Romans used the ankle bones from goats and sheep to make the early dice. Also used was wood, horns, and ivory

[edit] Unicode

The unicode doesn't work for me. Wouter Lievens 08:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D3 and D5

I noticed that under the section rarer sided dice, there's no d3 or d5 listed. They do exist though. They can be found at http://www.gamescience.com/ The only downside is that they make the d3 with R, P and S (Rock, Paper, Scissors)on them.

It looks as if one version of d5 is a triangular prism; this must be very difficult to make each face equally likely since some are triangles and others rectangles. The d3s do not have plane faces - otherwise a d1 (e.g. a sphere) and d2 (e.g. an intersection of two equal spheres, or a coin) would also be possible. --Henrygb 15:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that, as when (pre-d20) D&D rules call for a d2, a coin is exactly what many players I know use. Well, ok, mostly just me. Annoys the hell out of the others actually. But it is a nickname for it. ----oknazevad 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holding Pen

Misplaced (and removed by me) in the lead 'graph:

probably from the Latin dare: to give

Probably best in history section if not omitted.
--Jerzy~t 15:25 & 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is off-topic:

*diceware — use of dice to generate high security passwords

My guess is that Diceware can become a useful article. But quality aside, it adds little but distraction to the dice article, since (even if the topic deserves an article) it is a very minor use for dice.

Matchbook doesn't need a lk to info on how to use a matchbook (or, ideally, two) to stop the rocking of a piece of furniture with a leg that doesn't quite reach the floor. Likewise, if Diceware survives as an article, it should not be articles on random number generation, but those on security, that keep it from being an orphan. (Using random numbers, with whatever source, is not unusual in programs; Donald Knuth is supposed to have said "Every good program should involve a random number generator.") Even if diceware is notable, it is not notable in the context of dice.
--Jerzy•t 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrite

I summarized my edit (of the lead, before the first hdg) as

rewrite for many reasons

forgetting that section-edits of the lead are not distinguishable from edits of the whole article via their default summaries. That edit did not stray beyond the lead (if only bcz it could not): i did not make a rewrite of the article (nor do i intend to!), although it looks like i left nothing longer than "used to produce other random results" unchanged in the lead.
--Jerzy~t 21:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Standard variations" table

[edit] "pentagonal dodecahedron" & "regular"

_ _ My first take on the "pentagonal" edit was

Good point, there are dodecahedra with other than pentagonal faces, but others need analogous treatment (even tho since only the D4 & D6 escape that -- because tetrahedron is being so minimal and because "cube" specifiesying what "hexahedron" would not).

_ _ My second take, as i said in my now self-reverted edit, was that "regular", rather than face-shape, was the crux of the matter.
_ _ But i think both i and the "pentagonal" editor were being bone-headed: with at most two exceptions i know of (single-piece D100, i assume, and a D7 mentioned in WP in connection with a antique cribbage variant), even non-cubical dice are made with scads of symmetry - congruent faces and lots of congruent dihedral angles. If there's a problem in this article, it's that we don't make that as explicit, in one place, as we should. Once that is said, d12 doesn't need "pentagonal" or "regular", and so on down the line.
_ _ IMO it's worth remarking on the high symmetry in the context of the fact that every symmetry adds to the assurance of "fair" (equal-probability) dice.
--Jerzy·t 05:16 & 07:10, 2005 August 11 (UTC) [alterations show by old being struck thru and new being bolded.]

[edit] "Notes" on Trapezohedron

_ _ (For the whole table, the existing "Notes" column might better be split into two columns, "Face" ("Triangle", "Trapezohedron", etc., and "Notes", saving words and leaving the simpler cases clearly distinguished by having nothing in the "Notes".)
_ _ I'm removing

the smallest angle of five faces point to one edge, the smallest angle of the other points to the opposite.

bcz it is incoherant: Does "edge" mean "extemity of the figure" or "line segment between vertices? Does "point to" mean pointing like an arrow, or like the open, working end of a musical horn or a firearm? It is probably an attempt to specify the two roughly conical halves of the figure that result when it is broken roughly at the "equator" that ten of the 12 vertices cluster near; in any case, my replacement for it will help to make the point that depends on this one.
_ _ I'm removing

Additionally, on most currently-manufactured dice, faces on opposite halves of the die meet at a right angle.

bcz it calls for visualizing something (a right dihedral angle? A plane right angle on one face sharing a vertex with one wider angles belonging to each of two other faces?) not everyone can do from words alone, and bcz it is inconsequential: a fact with no obvious significance or even obvious curiosity value.
--Jerzy·t 07:10, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

[edit] Slang

The following:

== Slang ==
Dice is also related to the slang term of yahtzee.

moved here bz while the grammar is perfect, "related to the slang term of" is a construction that will leave typical native speakers scratching their heads. Is this trying to say anything worth saying? Does someone consider the trademark "Yahtzee" to be slang?
--Jerzy•t 17:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-transitive Dice

Request for article. Here are some details. Thanks!

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/25/nontransitive_dice_h.html

[edit] Inking

The article mentions that some dice had to be hand-inked. That may be so, although my memory is of dice where the numbers were cut out and a crayon was used to leave wax in the grooves thus making the numbers more visible. Many of the dice pictured look like that actually. I don't have anything I can cite to for this practice, however. Шизомби 01:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Is there a reason why this article is called Dice, the plural form instead of Die, the singular term? I don't know if there is a official standing on this, but most articles seem to take the singular term, like Tree, Pillow, Male. Shouldn't the article be called Die? DaftPenguu 22:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally, policy dictates that singulars should be used. However, "dice" is a special case. Huge numbers of people (probably the majority) use it as the singular, and make the plural either invariable ("dice") or regular ("dices"). Use of the plural "dice" also has the advantage of being unambiguous. That is to say, if we wanted to call it "die", we would have to put "(gambling object)" or some such nonsense in to distinguish it from the other meanings of the word "die". — Gulliver ✉ 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

I've noticed a huge amount of material on the Commons (Commons:Dice) which would look really cool if we could work it into the article. — Gulliver ✉ 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] d50 ?

Are you sure d50 is icosakaipentagonal dipyramid ? Because i never found any information about it. Just d48 wich is a Disdyakis dodecahedron. --R2cyberpunk 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] d4

I added a link to Daldøs, a Danish/Norwegian game where 4-sided rolling pins are used. I think they are rather unique (except for their use in a related Sami game, Sahkku, as mentioned in the Daldøs article). They roll much better than a tetrahedron. However, perhaps they should be mentioned under "Rarer variations" instead, a table line e.g. reading "d4", "Square prism", "Rolling pin used in the games Daldøs and Sáhkku". (The article on sahkku has not been written yet.)--Niels Ø 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is now, as it fits nicely within the paragraph. I've changed the sentence so the name of the game is in the text. Graham talk 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, here and in Daldøs.--Niels Ø 08:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probability graph

The graph in the section on the probability of a particular combo on 2 dice is in conflict with the chart. As far as I know, the chart is correct, and the graph is in error. I'll try to fix it, but I make no promises, mostly because I'm a hack at computer graphics. oknazevad 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dices"

The OED doesn't show "dices" in use since 1750. I think it's safe to say that "dices" is not just being suppressed by prescriptivists — it's just not being used anymore. Do we need this bizarre rant about prescriptivism in the lead of the article? —ptk✰fgs 14:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, a google search really rolls this one out:
*"one die": 655,000
*"one dice": 46,900
  • "two dice": 274,000
  • "two dices": 805
I'm doing a combination rewrite-revert on this edit. —ptk✰fgs 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree about "dices"; I conservatively left the claim that it's sometimes used from the previous version of the page, as I didn't have enough information to be sure it wasn't true. Personally I've never heard it. By all means move the bizarre rant somewhere else; there was previously an equally bizarre rant about usage in the same place, but less well informed and mixed up with the following paragraph, about shape and design.
And, er, the Google results for "one die" are totally specious. From the first page of results: "Can one die from a broken heart?", "Twenty-one die in military transport plane crash", "Air Force One die-cast airport", "One die-hard Red Sox fan", etc. Whereas OED confirms that "The form dice (used as pl. and sing.) is of much more frequent occurrence in gaming and related senses than the singular die." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.99.21 (talk • contribs) .
I think the way it's handled right now makes sense; I've just described the usage of the word, based on the OED and google searches. We don't need to say whether it's correct or incorrect. I've split the second half of that paragraph off; I think you're right and it makes more sense not to have them smooshed together.
  • "roll one die": 21,300
  • "roll one dice": 455
I'm still just not seeing where people are using "dice" as a singular. At best it's "uncommon". —ptk✰fgs 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but "roll a dice" 41,200. Besides, as noted above, I was echoing the OED's assertion that it's "much more frequent", as well as its information about the variant OF form dez. But as you obviously know better, I give up.
...And "roll a die" with 70,300 —ptk✰fgs 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

I've just done an editing pass to try to reword passages in dice notation. Many contributors to this page are probably comfortable with dice notation. Please do not assume that readers are, however, and avoid its use where it is not necessary to convey the point at hand. Unnecessary use of jargon is never good style. -Stellmach 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congruent sides is not enough

In the section on non-cubical dice, the fact that sides are congruent is mentioned. E.g. playing with Jovo, it is obvious that one may produce many polyhedrons out of identical triangles or squares, that would not be fair dice! In some of these, the faces, though congruent, are not symmetrically equivalent. In some, though the sides are symmetrically equivalent, the polyhedron is not convex but concave. So how is this expressed in a succinc and accessible way? I suspect all these unacceptable polyhedrons are in fact concave, but I am not sure.--Niels Ø 09:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sperical Dice

i have a dice that is a sphere, it works just like a normal dice and seems to be prefectly random. does anyone know how this works so it can be added in?Daniel625 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already had a section describing how a spherical die works. —ptk✰fgs 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The description of a spherical die is under one of the pictures.Rekov (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheat dice (see below)

"Cheat dice (see below) are often sold as loaded dice but usually are not technically loaded."

Wtf, see below. Very unprofessional here. Cheat dice actually need to be defined under their heading - not refer to some nebulous "below" area. Fresheneesz 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


needs external links (see below) where to buy them etc. 206.23.102.10 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I added a link to http://www.jasonholm.com/random_numbers.html Jsholm 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scatter dice

Added a few words to the entry - call me Mr Picky, but there is still almost always a 1/6 chance that you go by the symbol on the die, in the case that there is a "Hit" or other success, and scatter is not used. Slavedriver 18:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient 18-sided Chinese dice

At [1], one can read about ancient 18-sided Chinese dice used for the game Liubo. I think it deserves a mention in this article (and perhaps in the article on Liubo too). - Is this internet source a good one?--Niels Ø (noe) 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Article

It seems to me that this page has a lot of repetition, perhaps some should be removed? --jazzle 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singular Spelling

I thought it was di. 67.188.172.165 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The singular of "dice" is die (definition 1a). You can also click on the entry for "die [2, noun]" to see this explicitly specified. Val42 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Japanese die with it's oversized pip

Removed the picture of a "Japanese die" as the visual info was already apparent in another picture, and it's not true to say that only Japanese dice have a larger, red dot for number one. ShizuokaSensei 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Materials

This section was highly repetitive of content in other sections, and seemed very out of place in relation to the rest of the article. I edited it out, moving the few unique bits to the appropriate sections, especially the polyhedral dice information. Woodega 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo fixing

Thadius856 recently fixed a bunch of "typos," except almost none of them were things that would actually appear in print, and the ones that were seemed to actually be correct. Please let me know if I'm missing something here, though. - -Stellmach 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing image to Image, underscore to blank, [[heptagon|heptagonal]] to [[heptagon]]al etc., and re-ordering the non-printable endmatter, are all sensible source cleanup actions, though they cannot be properly described as typo fixes.
Changing <sup>2</sup> to ², etc., is something some editors believe to be sensible cleanup too, but I agree with you that when they sit right next to <sup>2</sup>, it creates an inconsistent appearance. In other cases, I think we should write for a perfect (though nonexistent) viewer, rather than using strange work-arounds to produce the desired appearance in the current (imperfect) viewers, but in this case, using the same construct for all the superfixes seems the best choice. - I'll now edit the article accordingly.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep... a typical AWB drive-by, leaving some obviously destructive edits mixed in with a few good ones. If the AWB folks can't get the thing working right, perhaps it's time to block it or shut it down. —BurnDownBabylon 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D100

I disagree about "Since an actual hundred-sided die would be large, almost spherical and difficult to read" as I have a 100 sided dice. It is bigger then a d6, about 2 to 2.5 times, but i wouldn't say it's large. It's not difficult to read (about font size 12, maybe a little bigger). And finaly, almost spherical, it is spherical but has 100 small flat sides (6mm), but it still will stop in the same distance as a d6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.108.113 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said except for the stopping distance. It will roll a lot further than a d6. But it can reasonably be rolled on a tabletop. — Val42 03:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A common 100 sided die is called a Zocchihedron. It is mentioned in a parenthetical aside in the article under polyhedral dice. I believe that the article could use a sentence or two on the subject. -Rekov (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

It seems to me that there are a large number of pictures attached to this article. I think that we should evaluate the usefulness of so many pictures. Perhaps we should remove some of them, such as the spherical dice (explanation of spherical dice will then need to be incorporated into the article), or the european/asian/casino style dice picture.Rekov (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Spherical dice are a novelty item, not really important in this article. I wouldn't miss that picture. However, the different appearance of Asian dice is, I think, relevant, and I don't think that picture should be removed. I rather think the number of pictures showing selections of polyhedral dice could be reduced.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I see your point about the Asian dice picture. Here is what I think needs to be removed: The spherical dice, 1 or 2 of the old dice (knucklebone, bone, and collection of historical Asian dice), the three pictures of purple polyhedral dice, and the picture of 5 blue polyhedral dice. This should eliminate most duplicates. Rekov (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't remove the knucklebone - it is (or at least may be) the historical root of modern dice! But it would be great if it could be replaced by a photo of an actual archaeological find, rather than some modern reproduction. Other than that, I agree.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following pictures: , , , , Note that I also removed the precision Backgammon dice, primarily because they do not match the description of precision dice in the article, and also because such dice are depicted in the European/Asian/Casino style dice picture. I have also moved the picture of assorted role-playing dice to the Application in role-playing games section, though this leaves the top of the article bare. I couldn't decide which of the historical dice pictures to remove so I left them all. -Rekov (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

bah, you removed my picture... i think that the more pictures the better, even if they don't match the description of the original dice, its always interesting to know the variations... i think the article was richer with those pictures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandexandi (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, once again we seem to have some unnecessary picture build up. Due to the controversy of the last purge, I will list this pictures which I believe to be unnecessary, and allow you people to reject some of them. Ok, first off, in the ORDINARY DICE section, there are two pictures which demonstrate the difference between European and Asian dice. I recommend that the photograph remain, as it also compares casino-style dice, and that the other image be deleted. The descriptions of the two images can perhaps be merged into the remaining picture. Rekov (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tetяaphobia

On oriental dice, I can understand 1 being marked specially. But does the red four have anything to do with oriental tetraphobia, where "four" and "death" are near homonyms in three languages? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also section

I think that the See Also section contains a lot of irrelevant links to other pages, which could be found with the categories present at the bottom of the page, anyway. However, as this appears to have resulted in what could become an edit war, I'm voicing my opinions here, rather than in editing. ~XarBioGeek (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. You have a good point. I have self-reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)