Talk:History of the board game Monopoly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of the board game Monopoly is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

History of the board game Monopoly has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (24 September 2006 to 30 October 2006)
• Archive 2 (next to start)

---

Contents 1 Article title "run-off" 1.1 Keep the current title 1.2 Change title to "History of Monopoly (game)" 1.3 Discussion

[edit] Article title "run-off"

As there are five votes each for keeping the current title and moving it to History of Monopoly (game), I'm going to ask for one more round of voting, and try to establish a consensus. If we either leave the title or move it, I can foresee an edit war due to the lack of consensus under one proposal or the other. So, please, cast a support vote for either of the two proposals underneath. Reasoning for either has been given (see the Talk archive), but if anyone has anything constructive to add, please feel free to do so below. --JohnDBuell 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep the current title

1. Support --JohnDBuell 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Trebor 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. "History of the game Monopoly" works as well. Gracenotes ^T § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: I believe that this article naming is just about akin to History of the name Azerbaijan. I would prefer that over History of Azerbaijan (name). 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Support -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change title to "History of Monopoly (game)"

1. Support — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) — Personally I much prefer the current title and can cite plenty of reasons why, but the main article is "Monopoly (game)." "History of..." is merely a prefix and should no change the main title reference. Ergo, "History of" + "Monopoly (game)." If there's going to be a debate, then it needs to be about the name of the main article (with any change/decision reflect here). P.S. Since I haven't participated in the debate to this point I should mention Monopoly is my favorite board game of all time (with many, many hours and days and weeks and... of play time).

   The only reason I disagree with your logic is that the article's content could be misconstrued as one about a game called "History of Monopoly". It sounds silly, but the current title avoids ambiguity. The main article is about a game; this article is about a history. Instead of having (game) potentially being seen as modifying all words prior to it, we can avoid that by having the article's title be "History of the game Monopoly". Of course, if you wanted to be specific, you could say "History of the board game Monopoly." Gracenotes ^T § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps the main article should be "The Board Game Monopoly", the current disambiguation of the main article is not reader-friendly. The main and history of titles really should match, or if not, it should be decided in discussing both together to reach a final consensus. (As in, for consistency, what title would work for both the main and "history of" articles which would be suitably unambiguous for both?" IMHO, of course. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   If I were going for consistency, "History of Monopoly (game)" would be the most ideal title. But I'm not going for consistency, because I believe that consistency needs to be sacrificed for clarity. The latter of which (in my opinion) is somewhat more valuable. Just my 0.015670297 euros. Gracenotes ^T § 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   As I said, my personal preference is for the current title—of course, my two cents came down on the side of consistency. :-) Clarity of the title leads to confusion in its finding. (I for one am now accustomed to typing "History of" in front of the name of an article to get more information.) "The Game Monopoly" would be fine for the main article, then "History of the Game Monopoly" here. It would be a stretch to think that someone meant statistical game theory applied to the development of monopolistic economies and the history thereof. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   This argument applies just as well in both directions. The game is also not called "the board game Monopoly", just as much as it is not "Monopoly (game)" or "History of Monopoly". siafu 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Support as before. siafu 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, because it should follow the name of the main article. Tuf-Kat 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, as before, and because “board game” is irrelevant to classify games. Juiced lemon 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, for the second time. CG 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, the parenthetical description is used only when there is a conflict with another page or when context is necessary. Moving it to History of Monopoly (game) is unnecessary. Arguing that the article on the game is Monopoly (game) and so this should refer to "Monopoly (game)" misses the point of what disambiguation means. It doesn't change the title of the subject, it's just a technical convention to deal with the technical problem of being unable to have two different articles at the same page name. (Different software can do this, but the way Wikipedia is set up we can't.)

Incidentally, is there any reason the article is not at History of Monopoly? The "the board game" part of the title seems superfulous. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is in the archive and essentially concluded it would be too similar to History of monopoly - an article on business. Trebor 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think that's necessary on technical or other grounds, but I didn't participate in that discussion. :) I added a disambiguation link to the top of History of monopoly, since I suspect many people will search for that and get lost looking for this article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)