Talk:Solitaire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Patience vs. Solitaire

I'm not sure whether 'Patience' is an equivalent term for Solitaire card games or for Klondike in particular.

I believe it's the former.

I'm sure it's the former. I remember reading about someone playing "Miss Milligan's Patience". -- TimNelson 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peg Solitaire

Solitaire is also a name of a game played with pegs and holes in the shape of a cross: perhaps the card game should be moved to Card Game, and an entry on Solitaire put here? Dave McKee

Or perhaps move the peg game to peg solitaire?

Which is the more common usage over the world as a whole? ~~~~ 15:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although both Patience and Solitaire are actually the same, the word Patience applies only to countries which use British English (such as the UK and Australia). Furthermore, its most popular variant has an alternative name of Solitaire.

[edit] Screenshot

Why the only screenshot is from Klondike? The most popular version of Solitaire is the one included in Windows and it should be the one depicted. Futurix 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Solitaire in Windows is Klondike; Microsoft just gave it a standard name. So it is right that Klondike is the one posted there. - 上村七美 | talk 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about actually name of the game, I'm talking about software implementation (under Windows vs. others). Users are 95% more likely to see Windows version and screenshots should familiar to them. Futurix 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an issue of copyrights. The Klondike in GNOME is free software, under the GPL, which makes the image clearly compliant with the GFDL, while any screenshot of an image from the Windows version would have to be used under fair use, which is less desirable, especially as fair use policies vary from country to country. By using the GNOME image, we're clearly on the correct side of copyright, and the two look similar enough that anyone who has seen the Windows version should recognize it immediately. -FunnyMan 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Which still means that Wikipedia clearly biased in favour of open source software, and you prefer material about open source software to material about more popular commercial one. So what's new? Futurix 16:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


With regard to the current screenshot, would it not make more sense to show a game in progress than a completed one?

Agreed - the shot of the bouncing card display communicates nothing about the nature of the game. As for the discussion above, screenshots from free software are themselves less likely to be unencumbered by incompatible copyright. In any event, this article isn't specific to solitaire played on a computer, and a picture of a layout with real cards on a table would probably be preferable to any screenshot. And no, screenshots needn't be already familiar to be clearly communicative - in fact the more familiar they are, the less new information for the viewer they contain. - toh 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Microsoft Solitaire -- has anyone else noticed that it is a bit easier to win on Tuesdays and Sundays in the XP version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

The external links section seems to be a little out of control with the vast majority of links being to downloads (free and commercial) of various online card games. These links are not exactly encyclopedic and there are sites that hosts directories that are more suitable. I suggest trimming the links down to the following:

A couple of links that aren't actually game downloads would also be lost:

  • Peter's Patience Rules to solitaire games and scans of solitaire books dating to as far back as 1839. - This is a less direct link to the same site as the Facsimile copies above.
  • Solitaire Laboratory Articles on FreeCell, Fourteen Out, and Pyramid - The author, Michael Keller, may be well known in solitaire circles, but I've never heard of him, so I suggest we don't link to his site. (If he's actually a recognized authority and I've just not noticed him please point this out!)
  • ChessandPoker.com Strategy Guide contains a 9-step process to determine the best play. - This is how-to-ish and just focused on Klondike. Seems to narrow for this article.

I'll go ahead with these edits tomorrow unless anyone objects here. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to have any links other than the Dmoz one. The US Playing card site is on the Dmoz list, for example. All the "play online" and software links are basically interchangeable and covered by the Dmoz link. While two of the links you like would not be included if we only went with the Dmoz one, I think we have to sacrifice that unless there is at least some active sense on this talk page that they should be exceptions and kept. Also, this link phenomenon is playing itself out on several solitaire articles, especially with the play online type links. They could all use a look at. 2005 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm particularly keen on seeing the Parlett history link stay. It's encyclopedic information from a recognized authority and goes into more detail than the article probably ought too. And is well written. I think keeping a link like that on this page is a service to readers - directs them to the best external encyclopedic information that we don't cover, without them having to trawl through less encyclopedic links in the dmoz listing. The others I'm not prepared to champion over objections. I'll delete all but the DMOZ link for now and replace the Parlett one tomorrow if no one objects.
If all goes smoothly with this article I'll try the same approach on the other solitaire ones - do you know if the solitaire card game category is reasonably comprehensive? -- Siobhan Hansa 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please attempt to source the Parlett article if it has the value that you say it does. If we do the dmoz thing we really should just leave it at that. I don't really know solitaire so I couldn't say, but it seems that an article like Parlett's should be sourced here. This solves one issue, while also buidling a better article. The solitaire category is comprehensive in terms of "solitaire articles in the Wikipedia", but I have no idea if it is comprehensive in terms of "types of solitaire games". 2005 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
By source do you mean attempt to use it the article as a source, or attempt to source my claims that it's useful, authoritative etc.?
On the category issue - I just meant in terms of the other articles you mention above that need attention. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A WP:RS reliable source referencing something in the article. 2005 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well his books are more appropriate WP:RS sources (I've been trying to dig one out that I'm sure I have around somewhere to add to the article) but they aren't so convenient for our readers. The article on the other hand is a great external link - convenient and appropriate, but - not being published in the same way as a book or journal - less appropriate for an actual reference. I don't think there is any requirement in our guidelines that an external link be used as a source in order to be appropriate is there? -- Siobhan Hansa 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no requirement, but if it is valuable it should be able to source something. We aren't talkking about his books, or what is better, only whether the artciel can serve as a reference. If not, I wouldn't list it as an external link unless you are prepared to add other external links back. 2005 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with other external links being in the article. This was an attempt to improve the external links section - not wipe it out. Which others do you think would be good additions and why? -- Siobhan Hansa 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't really say, other than I don't see any use for the play online or buy software sites, nor would I normally include the dmoz link if there are other links. Better to pull any appropriate links from the category. 2005 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luck vs Skill

Would be nice if there was a section about the "winnability" of various Solitude variations. E.g, klondike is not always completable (although presumably it would be possible to implement a computer-based version that was), hence requires a certain amount of luck, whereas Freecell can always be completed, and is arguably a game of pure skill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.213.103 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Families of Solitaire?

Has any consideration been given to the idea of classifying Solitaire games into families? For example, Peter's Illustrated Patience (which I believe is actually a software manual) classifies the games into multiple groups; I find that the groups don't always make a lot of sense, but I presume from the commentary on the other pages on the site that the classifications are more to do with historical descent than taxonomic similarity. The reason I came to this page in the first place, though, was from playing AisleRiot solitaire, and finding the choice of games simply by name to be too much; family indications by taxonomic similarity would be wonderfully helpful. I suspect that books on Solitaire/Patience would go into a lot more detail, so I guess I'm really requesting ideas from those who've read such books, on taxonomic suggestions, or failing that, prognostications from those who have played a wide variety of Solitaire games (not just Klondike).

-- TimNelson 09:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Scores

I'm removing this section. This article is about the family of card games, not just the Windows game, and I suspect that's just vandalism anyway, as a Google search for 'Elliot Funt' turns up nothing other than this article. If anyone has an actual reference, it might be worth re-adding to Klondike (solitaire). Wibbble 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Winning Solitare.PNG

Image:Winning Solitare.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)