Talk:Card game

Miscategorization?

Why is Screw Your Neighbour in the "accumulation" section? It's based on a certain number of tokens and trying not to lose them, not collecting the deck. In that, it's much closer to "challenge" poker games (though in reverse), rather than games like War. 21:55, 6 June 2006 (PST)

Also, why is Cribbage in the 'Rummy' section? It's nothing like Rummy. 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Poker101.net

• www.poker101.net is listed as a resourve on "many card games", but it looks like it only deals with the poker family (not unsurprising, that's what the name says). I'll look more closely tomorrow, and perhaps change the link. Mike Church 08:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Removed the link. This is an article about the card game genre, not specific to any one game. -- Netoholic 04:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move this to a "List of" article?

This page is not much more than a simple list. How about moving to "List of" unless someone can add some content?

Rules for card games

If you check out the article on card games, you'll notice that many of the games linked from it are mainly rules and how-tos. It seems like how-tos are generally thought of as non-encyclopedic, and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia proper. Perhaps a good idea would be to make each of these articles containing rules of card games into encyclopedic articles about the background of these games; then move the rules into Wikibooks articles, freelinking to them from the Wikipedia articles. We could even create a whole Wikibookshelf dedicated to rules of card games or rules of games in general. Everything in its right place... —siroχo 15:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

We should borrow best practice from the people who've been writing the chess articles. They manage to give us a certain amount of "how to"-like advice, which adds to the article, but generally still read encyclopedically. Pcb21| Pete 16:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I see your point here. Chess is certianly a large enough phenomenon that its common rules and techniques can be made encyclopedic—they have a history to write about and common examples to give. Card-game-wise, there are several games that have enough history to write encyclopeic articles about them and thier strategy. But I think a mere rulebook for any game, regardless of its popularity, is a piece for Wikibooks. The analyses of strategy and technique, and even the history of the rules can often make for encyclopedic articles, however. So I still belive that the rules themselves should go to Wikibooks, certainly linked to from Wikipedia. —siroχo 16:23, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Siroxo isn't the first to have commented that, while any given game's history and description belong in an encyclopedia, its complete rules do not, and neither do strategy guides. They say only an outline of the rules and a dash of strategy is appropriate as part of the game's description. I partially agree, but it isn't clear to me that the material belongs in a textbook instead. Textbooks, unlike encyclopedia articles, are large and layered. They develop a deep understanding in stages, e.g. first let me tell you X so you will be ready for me to explain Y. You are not supposed to read Chapter 2 of a textbook without having read Chapter 1, but the rules of a game are self-contained, and don't require you to have read anything first. I can imagine the fellow writing a physics textbook would be bemused to see a "canasta textbook" appear alongside his, if the latter consisted of just the rules of canasta. There is a stronger case for saying, "That material isn't textbook-like," than for saying, "That material isn't encyclopedic."

Strategy guides are another matter. Once the material becomes sufficiently long and comprehensive, it reads more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Chess strategy and tactics is perhaps the most textbook-like of the Wikipedia articles on games. If it were to be expanded several times over (without being broken into smaller, self-contained bits) then I would nominate it for wikibooks. But small strategy articles such as Settlers of Catan, Strategic considerations don't nearly rise to that level.

Yes, many people (including me) have an intuition that an encyclopedia explains how things are but not how to do things. But moving all content of the nature of how to do things to wikibooks doesn't solve the problem. The information might be even more misplaced over there. Wikibooks should not be a dumping ground for information just because that information isn't traditionally encyclopedic. Maybe there should be a project type "WikiHOWTO", if people are determined that game rules and such find a new home.

Peace, --Fritzlein 23:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I do like the idea of a Wikihowto, although I thought that was part of what wikibooks was for. The front page says "free, open content textbooks, manuals and other texts." Howto guids certainly fall somewhere under the "manuals" section or at least "other texts". If you take a look around Wikibooks, there are guids for bicycle repair, getting a girl, and the computer game Civilization. Certainly the spirit of wikibooks is far beyond simply textbooks, and I think rules and strategy guides for card games could go quite well there. In fact someone seems to have started the inital steps of a card game strategies page, although not followed up on it yet. Lastly, I agree that wikibooks is not just a dumping ground for non-encyclopedic stuff, and I think that game rules and even strategy guides do have a place there. —siroχo 04:43, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Now I see the "manuals and other texts". Clearly the purpose of Wikibooks is in flux, because if you read the article Wikibooks it only talks about textbooks, not about manuals or other texts. Maybe putting game rules in Wikibooks is in keeping with the existing trend to have more stuff be defined as a Wikibook, but that sounds basically like saying, "Since there is non-textbook stuff at Wikibooks, it's obviously within the spirit of Wikibooks." I could reply just as well that, "Since dozens of Wikipedia articles consist partly or entirely of game rules, that's obviously within the spirit of Wikipedia." The real questions are Should Wikibooks have game rules among the texts? and Should Wikipedia have game rules as articles? Maybe the answer is no to both, or yes to both. I don't know. But my intuition is more towards no on the Wikibooks than towards no on the Wikipedia articles. --Fritzlein 05:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are there commercial books that discuss rules of and strategies for card games? Of course. So why wouldn't such text be appropriate for Wikibooks? As for what is encyclopaedic enough to include in Wikipedia, don't forget that Wikipedia itself redefines what an encyclopaedia can be. If we can include lists of things (which I very much favor, personally), we should certainly be able to include text on card game rules and strategy. It seems to me the only real issues are:

1. Should we expect to have descriptions, history, rules, and strategy all in a single Wikipedia article? (Answer: If it's a simple game, making for a relatively small article, probably so. If it's sophisticated or has a lot of history, perhaps a separate article for history and complex rules is appropriate, unless it's really complex, at which point the details can be moved to Wikibooks.)
2. If both Wikipedia and Wikibooks articles are viable, then where does one focus one's efforts?

All of this is easily handled in Wiki style: each person contribute what they know and have time and interest in writing. As each card game topic develops, discuss changes (expanding into one or the other Wiki; dividing Wikipedia articles into base and strategy components) in each game's Talk page; and discuss general guidelines for card game articles in Talk:Card game. (In fact, this whole discussion should be moved there.) Nothing need be cast in stone before it is written, n'est pas? The only other issue is that Card game itself really should have material on basic concepts and the history of card playing. -- Jeff Q 06:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also involved here is the general question of how WP relates to other reference Wikis. I pushed to set up PokerWiki because i felt like much of what we wanted to do was outside the scope of Wikipedia. Arguably it might be more in the scope of Wikibooks, but as attested by the discussion above, that's still in some flux. It was never our intention to compete with Wikipedia or Wikibooks, but it was pretty clear in my mind that they weren't appropriate homes for what we wanted to do. If someone has a strong opinion that something like our limit hold 'em river play page (not to mention something like the Borgata page) belongs in 'books, well, I'm open to discussion. - PhilipR 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

Currently, the first sentence is not very good. I never like defining a phrase using itself.

A card game is any game using playing cards, either traditional or game-specific.

I've tossed it around, and I can't think of a good way to start this out such that it defines what a card game is and is broad enough to apply to the wide variety out there. Any edits would be appreciated. -- Netoholic 12:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Citing the source?

A very large part of the text in this article seems to be taken verbatim from the first external source listed, www.pagat.com, without this being clearly identified. A quick check reveals the following in the source:

"Except where otherwise explicitly stated all material on this site is copyright © John McLeod - date as given at the bottom of each page. Pages are not to be copied or reproduced in any format without permission."

This is probably something that needs attention; maybe the article should acknowledge the source, be rewritten in other words, or removed and replaced with a link.

67.68.69.233 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just spotted this section. See Copyright below. I believe that John McLeod also has no objection to the use of the material in this article. Maproom (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Basque game "Mus"?

I have a request for information (including rules and how-to, but also anything else) on a Basque game called Mus that apparently is similar to poker but played by two teams of two players each. I don't see anything on it here, or in the Esperanto or Euskara Wikipedias. Anybody? --Haruo 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Yekrats over at eo: already came up with sources on it in four languages. I will explore what can be said without copyright infringement (the game goes back to at least 1745, so it's not itself proprietary) and post it in eo: and perhaps subsequently in en: if no one else does. --Haruo 7 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

es:Mus also has a good article with links. This makes sense, because if I'm not mistaken the game is fairly popular throughout Spain, not just in Euskadi. I'll check out what you've added on eo: as well because What's the title of your article on eo:? eo:Mus doesn't exist and eo:Muso is apparently the entry for Mouse and doesn't have anything about a card game that I can understand with limited eo. I'm somewhat interested in the topic of Mus, though I've not yet sat down and figured out how to play. - PhilipR 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dishonesty

It is dishonest to try to see cards as they are dealt, or to take advantage of having seen a card accidentally.

Really? Most poker players, from amateurs to pros, will readily take advantage of such information (as rare as it is) without saying a thing. An exception: if a player makes a habit of exposing cards, that player should be alerted. If they continue to do so beyond that, taking advantage of the information is considered fair game. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What is this games name?

Hello. I am looking for the name of a game I have recently come across. However, the gameboard that I saw was homemade. The board: was an old monopoly painted over board. The design: 52 cards with the corners cut to make two. Glued in a pattern filling up the board. The play: 4 player, 2 teams. Two decks shuffled, each player with seven cards. Players across from each other are partners. Tokens or chips are used for marking. Each team gets a color. Players turns are clockwise. First player goes. He puts whatever card he wants to mark in a discard pile, puts a chip on it. Next player same thing. The object is to get five of your teams color in a row any way two times, and always keep your eyes on the others in case you need to block. Jacks are wild and Jokers on the board are used as free spaces. With a jack you can pick any space on the board as long as it does not include any of the five in a row that has already been claimed. All I need is a name for this game. If you have heard of it please respond.

Organization

Two things:

• 1. Although this list is organized, I think it would be better organized by "families" (eg., the "Euchre Group" (includes Pinochle), the "Whist Group" (includes Bridge), the "Poker Group", etc. Almost all card games can be grouped in them, and, if time permits, I will attempt to do this myself unless there are objections.
• 2. I think there should be a second list of card games listed in alphabetical order (perhaps titled "List of card games") to allow users to find a specific game quicker. Right now, this list isn't too bad, but I could envision it easily becoming so.

Rt66lt 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nigger President

Anyone heard about this game? It can be played by at least 3 players. And its supposed be played in many rounds. And after each round, each player get a rank in a social hierarchy depending on which place they came. The winner becomes the President. The looser becomes the nigger.

Um, I know the game as "Arsehole". Wikipedia has it filed under President (game). The above name is a variation that may be popular in some circles, but is considered generally offensive by most people. Morganfitzp 21:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Card Game=European Card Game?

I'm not saying we have to delete the content. But I would expect the article about "card game" to be about any game from any culture or history. There are many kind of card, for example, tarrot, hanafuda, karuta or magic the gathering. The wording in the article should reflect that.Vapour

Types of card games section

I added some definitions to the headings in the Types of card games section. I took me a bit to figure out what a couple of them meant. Can someone take a look at them and correct or refine them a bit? -Freekee 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Someone who knows more than me should add GUMPSH to this list. Great game.

As far as I know

I see Skopa among dedicated deck card games. I am a game journalist and I read quite a lot (and wrote something) about games in the last couple of dozens years. Never heard of Skopa, I'd personally suggest to erase it. While Scopa is an Italian card game using traditional Italian cards. It is played with 40 cards, either using decks with that amount of cards or taking away 8s, 9s and 10s from traditonal 52 cards deck. Since it use very colorful, very local card decks (we have 16 regional decks at the moment in Italy), somebody could have mistaken them for dedicated cards, if I may suggest an explanation. -Angiolillo 15:35, 17 January 2007

Different kinds of decks.

Hello everybody,

There is something I do not like right in the second setence of this article. What is meant by "a set of 52 cards"? I have the idea that the english version of Wikipedia could be read by many people perhaps not familiar with the regular deck of 52 cards divided into 4 suits with 13 cards numbered A,2,...,10,J,Q,K wich, spreadily used, for example, in the United States. What about explain this better? There is a picture of this regular deck of 52 cards at the article Playing Cards. We could make a reference to it, maybe.

As this article is part of a bigger project, I did not want to perform any drastic change without anyone working hard on it agreeing to that.

M Marcondes de Freitas 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not like the assertion "Although many games have special decks of cards, the standard deck contains 52 cards in four suits (clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades)". This is only true from a north American point of view. In China, a standard pack has 54 cards: those 52 plus a red and a black joker. In South America, it has 40 cards, and the suits are batons, swords, cups and coins. In Europe, many different packs are used.

It's fine to present a bridge/poker pack as an example, but not to treat it as "standard" and all other packs as "special". Maproom (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a qualifier such as "a standard North American deck has 52 cards" and then something can be added about others? Or some elaboration on this point, the idea being to make the article less tailored about one area of the world. Basically that paragraph can be rewritten in a better fashion to accommodate this kind of information. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Skill/No Skill

It would be interesting to identify any games that require no skill or decision to be made. I can only think of Beggar-your-neighbor as being in this category. It's playing takes no skill or decision in the playing - the cards 'fall as they may'. Some of the games of patience and card games suitable for young children might fall into this category but even a game of Snap needs skill.
User:Brenont 03:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

jasmin turibio

a student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.147.117 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I believe that portions of this article have been copied from the page Mechanics of Card Games on the site pagat.com. I wrote those portions of that page from which the material has been copied. I hereby grant to Wikipedia the rights to use this material. Nick Wedd. Maproom (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)