Jump to content

Talk:Cluedo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Missing stuff

year of first publication?
list of weapons and locations?
why Clue in N. America??

Added list of weapons, but don't have a list of rooms handy. Some speculation of why it is Clue in North America appears in the piece (I worked on Clue: Murder at Boddy Mansion PC game -- no one at Hasbro knew why it was Clue in N. America as opposed to Cluedo).

What should we do about the differences between Clue and Cluedo? It looks messy to have the differences littered throughout the article. Should we have a seperate section listing the differences? Should we have a section called "Cluedo in popular culture" and list some examples? Frecklefoot 15:16 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Strongly recommend adding 'The Complete Clue Guide' in the external links; very thorough webpage.
I don't see anything there that really adds to the article. Also, it's just a fan site, discouraged on Wikipedia. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's taken this long for me to reply. Originally, I suggested The Complete Clue Guide be added to the external links, and someone replied that that particular website offers nothing that isn't already on Wikipedia. In fact, that website offers much more information than one might find on Wikipedia. For instance, you can actually play the VCR games through the website; you can see original scans and images; and you can read quite a range of reviews about the many variations of Clue. It's far more thorough in these respects than many other Clue websites. As for it being a fansite, almost every website listed here is a fansite; but for that of Hasbro, every website is necessarily a fansite, after all. I still recommoned The Complete Clue Guide be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.44.79 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Clue Guide is way more pertinent and exhaustive than some of the other sites listed, like ArtofMurder... We should list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.44.79 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the inline URLS to the site discussed in this sub-section. As the Editor has repeatedly denied adding links to this site to the main article, there is no reason why they should be snuck in here, through the back door, so to speak, at the top of this page. Cakewlk11 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes: Clue vs. Cluedo

I changed references from "Clue in United States" to "Clue in North America" since it is known as Clue in Canada as well. Similarly I changed references from "...in US version" to "...in NA version," the "NA" standing for "North American." If this doesn't feel clear, feel free to change them to "North American." -Frecklefoot

"North America" consists of the countries of Panama to Canada, inclusively. (Greenland is a territory of Denmark.) Since it is "Clue" in only the U.S. and Canada, I've changed it to that. Val42 18:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's subjective. Many people consider any country south of the U.S. to be be part of "Central America". - -Frecklefoot 06:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I consider Central America a subdivision of the North American continent. Since there is an ambiguity, I think that it is better that Canada and the U.S. be listed separately. Val42 21:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel that people who exclude Mexico and Central America from the limits of North America are merely incorrect. Modern maps and atlases always show North America ending with Panama. The Wiki articles on North America and Central America reflect this as well -- though the latter mentions the contention -- but I think this article or others should just go with the "official" boundary. Kidicarus222 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
get a life.
Well with the article the way it is now, I think it's okay, unless someone can indeed find proof that the game is called Clue from Mexico south to Panama. That's irrespective of the quotation I added below, which came from Parker Brothers. :) --JohnDBuell 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It IS known as Clue in Mexico. I have a copy of the boardgame--in Spanish--purchased in Mexico City in 2003. Elefuntboy 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Text from the booklet that came with the 50th anniversary US edition (1999): "In North America Mr. Pratt's game is called, simply, CLUE. But in its native England and elsewhere around the world, its name is CLUEDO®. That's a play on the Latin phrase 'ludo,' for 'I play.' Clues + I play = CLUEDO. Brazilians get to the heart of the matter: Their name for it in Portuguese is 'DETETIVE.'" --JohnDBuell 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tunnels

I remember there was a tunnel from one corner of the board to the one diagonally opposite, but I can't recall which two corners were linked. If it comes to me I'll add it to the map. Jlang 12:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are "secret passages" that lead from the corner rooms to the diagonally opposite room on the board. These rooms are the Lounge->Conservatory and the Study->Kitchen. I don't know how you'd represent that on the map. Does it seem strange to anyone else that there are no bathrooms in the mansion? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but then again, it'd suck to be murdered in a bathroom.
There is no bedroom either, this is just the groundfloor!

Kimelinor 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I never actually got that! Cool. Is there only one sollution to the game? Or are there multiple ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright/Patent

It would be nice to know if this game is till under any Patent or Copyright protection. The original patent was aquired more than 50 years ago. Does that mean that anyone already can publish this game in any form like Chess or Checkers? --Aou

That's an interesting question, but I wouldn't try it. I know Disney is worried about their first landmark picture, Snow White, passing into the public domain and has been getting Congress to pass laws that allows them to keep their copyright on the film. I think "works" that belong to companies instead of individuals have special protections. The protections that apply to Disney probably also apply to Hasbro properties as well. But, this is all off the cuff, IANAL. :-S
Please sign your posts. I added your sig to the post above, but you can add your signature by typing 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is usually preferred since it also adds a timestamp. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Disney has managed to get the copyright laws extended over and over again, the Bono act or somesuch. And their worry is more over the early Mickey Mouse cartoons, which came out in the 1920's. -Fuzzy 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, Steamboat Willie would have been in the public domain before it got released onto DVD if they hadn't gotten the extensions. I think they now have until 2018 or 2028 (the 90th or 100th anniversary, I'm not sure). --JohnDBuell 21:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

After some googling I got an impressin that they definitly have trademark "Clue" protected. So you can't just create and publish your own "Frecklefoot's Clue". But what if you'll create the game with exactly the same rules, but different characters and name? Aou

"Ideas are not copywritable," so that's probably permissible. IIRC, though, one company was sued by Hasbro by making a Monopoly clone, Ghettopoly. If it was identicle, it probably would be a problem, but with sufficient differences—and lack of popularity and press—it'd probably be fine. If it's too similar, you might get in trouble, though. Remember, IANAL. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, if you read the Monopoly article, you'll find that Monopoly was successful in prosecuting suits until it was proven that there was substantial prior art. As long as you avoid all of their trademarks, there's nothing they can do about you creating your own Monopoly. They no longer have a monopoly on the game's concept. Sorry about the pun, couldn't resist. Anyhow, that would seem to suggest that concepts can indeed be registered in some form such that you can't just create a version with different names, although I've heard some talk that they only succeeded due to "the possibility of confusing the spin-offs with the registered trademark of Monopoly." In other words, the -opoly suffix and - the landmark case where their monopoly on Monopoly was broken due to the prior art being legally proven - Anti-Monopoly. -Fuzzy 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The mechanics behind a games rules cannot be copyrighted (or even legally protected) How the rules are actually written can be copyrighted, but a copy of the rules rewritten using different wording would not be a violation of said copyright. The graphics of the game and the names of certain components can be trademarked, which lasts indefinitely. So you can sell your own version of Monopoly as long as you do not use the same corner squares or an …opoly name (those are Hasbro's Trademarks.) If the owner of Ghettopoly had been willing to fight in court, he probably would have won the right to keep using the Ghettopoly name as a parody, but since he did not show up in court he summarily lost, which would make the next parody harder to defend if the summary judgment was taken as precedent.
P.S. Hasbro has claimed patents for the physical aspect s of playing the Magic: The Gathering card game, but the legal validity of such a patent has not been tested. (You can get a patent for almost anything due to the limitation of oversight for the huge number of patents that are issued, leaving it up to a competitor to sue over a patent that should not have been issued. For example there was a patent issued for using a man-made stick as a dog toy.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

Officially licensed US editions, like the Alfred Hitchcock edition (and probably the Scooby Doo edition too, I'd have to check) have been produced by USAopoly, which also produces MANY licensed Monopoly sets. There's also Clue: the Card Game, published by Winning Moves, for 3-5 players, though the bottom of the box says 2-4 :P It's subtitled "Mystery Beyond the Mansion" - it uses the same characters but you have to determine where they're escaping to, and how the character is traveling. --JohnDBuell 02:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) I found an unofficial version on the web and it is quite similar to the original heres a link: http://www.evacommentary.org/omake/clue.html

Clue characters

Does anybody have a full list of all the Clue/Cluedo characters, all inclusive of all versions?

At least in the United States version, these are the characters, in turn order: Miss Scarlet, Col. Mustard, Mrs. White, Mr. Green, Miss Peacock and Prof. Plum. This is the spelling from the 1949 board, but I also verified that these are the characters on a 1960 and 1972 board. (I just verified on all three boards.) Val42 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia modification

In the trivia section recent modification in *Expressions such as "Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with the Wrench," (from Clue) have entered popular culture, in much the same way as "Hotel on Boardwalk (Mayfair in the British edition)" from Monopoly. from Jumanji to Clue. *shrug* My impression reading it initially was that the writer intended to say the reference was made in Jumanji. I've never seen all of Jumanji, so I don't really know the truth of the matter, but it seems reasonable. -Fuzzy 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the game

I've just removed two points from this section as they just seemed very ambiguous and obvious. Also the whole of this section used the word "her" so i've edited it to be a bit more gender neutral.

Well, they weren't criticisms at all, but strategies. I moved them to the new "Strategies" section and made them completely gender neutral. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm try to dispute the argument that it's merely a "Mastermind-like game". Yes, they are strategies, so it makes sense to open a new section as well, I can accept that. But the 2 points removed are to show that luck and psychological elements plays a part in the game, and it's not just Mastermind-like. How is "ambigious and obvious" related to the argument? AbelCheung 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clue

The reason is clearly that you are searching for clues not some obscure referance (or lack of) to parcheesi. Jamhaw 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Cluedo???

Shouldn't this article be called Clue (game) as it is called in North America instead of its European name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.193.225 (talk)

What makes the North American version more notable than the European version? Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, so both names are correct. Besides, Clue redirects here, so it isn't a big deal. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the game originated in the United Kingdom, I believe the article should have the name the product was known by in its' country of origin, especially as it is still known by that name outside North America. (I accept the principle may be different in the case of products that started off with a different name but have now subsequently dropped the old name, eg Opal Fruits.) Therefore, "Cluedo" as the main title is correct. - 82.152.178.86 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. The game should be on a page titled after it's name in the country of origin. Krupkaa2
Agreed, BUT, there is a picture labeled "first edition" and it is called "Clue" not "Cluedo"... I know most book articles are named after their first appearance/printing, so why not games. If this picture is not the "first edition" then it should not be labeled as such or it should be replaced with a real "first edition". Antmusic (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I can only assume that it is the first North American edition. The caption can be changed to reflect that. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
...which I did. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the page should read Cluedo (Clue in North America) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.162.7 (talk • contribs)

As it does. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references to requiring at least three players

I have removed the following two statements from the article:

The game is unusual in that it requires at least three players, as opposed to a minimum of two for most board games.
The game cannot be played with two people, because the process of elimination diffuses the same information to both players. Such a game tends to pass quickly.

As currently stated, these are opinions. They should not be represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that is not opinion, they are stated in the rules, and even the game box for crying out loud. My sister and I played it with two players when we were kids, but it is meant for 3 or more players.
If you disagree, state why here. As it is published, it is intended for 3 or more players. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My copy of Cluedo is for two-to-six players, and the rules clearly state this. It is perfectly playable with two players under the rules as stated in the accompanying leaflet. This is the Waddingtons version, UK, 1995. I will alter the article to remove the incorrect statement that the game is impossible to play with two, and to state that the Waddingtons version is for two-to-six players. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation question

I live in North America and have always known the game as Clue. Since I've only seen "Cluedo" in print and not heard it in conversation, I have no idea as to its pronounciation. Others in my situation may have the same problem, so an IPA chart might add to this article. Is the second syllable more closely sounded as dew or as doe? Thanks in advance! MToolen 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As in "doe", due to its derivation from "ludo". Chris Cunningham 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In most european countries which do not know the term clue, it is pronounced as Clu-e-do, with the stress on the 2nd syllable; clu as in clue and than e as in nay(as in the voting) and -do (from do, a deer, a female deer)

Perhaps useless on this site, yet a big mistery to me as a kid; I had no idea where the funny name came from, took me years to figure the clue bit out. Kimelinor 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the idea for an IPA pronunciation chart for the various international titles. I actually came to the page to find the pronunciation of "Cluedo"-- if I hadn't come into the talk page to potentially ask myself, I'd have not run across this "-doe" tidbit. Student Driver 10:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I third(?) this, for exactly the same reason: I wasn't sure if the last syllable rhymed with "to" or "go." At the least, there should be an IPA treatment of "Cluedo" at the top of the page, though maybe not for each international title. Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
When we wrote the video game version, the Hasbro rep from England pronounced it Clue- (just like it looks) -doe (as in deer). So I'm going with that. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that the final poster here indicated that the UK pronunciation is CLUE + DOE, two syllables not three, yet the current IPA at the head of the article seems to be the European pronunciation, which would seem to have been modified from the UK original to better parse with the form of the Romance languages. Can I change this IPA to the 2-syllable version do you think? 219.89.61.121 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

French film

I've tentatively removed a reference to a 1993 French film called Cluedo because it was uncited and I can find no sign of such a film on the imdb. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the change from Dr. Black to Mr Boddy?

This doesn't seem to be explained anywhere in the article. I can't see a reason for it. Anyone? Loganberry (Talk) 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was changed for the usual PC reasons- having a man named Black being murdered repeatedly might be seen as racist. I have nothing to back this up though, so can't add it to the article. Similarly, Mr. Green was originally Reverend Green, but because there was a common joke among players that he turned out to be the murderer a disproportionate amount of the time, it seemed offensive to the church to have a priest as a serial killer. Again, no reference though, just memories from years ago. BlackMageJ 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also it makes more sense that he not have a colour name due to being the victim, not one of the suspects. But maybe that's just the OCD pedant in me :p --86.135.216.24 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I read that it was changed from "Dr." because the man was intented to be a trillionaire for the new game, and "Mr. Black" sounded like a suspect name, so they changed it to something that sounded more victimized. That's the way I heard it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Revolver/Pistol

Does anyone know if the firearm was refered to as the revolver or the pistol in the original game? 67.169.186.228 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 67.169.186.228.
If you look at http://www.theartofmurder.com/cluedo_games.html you will see that the 1949 UK Cluedo Game had a card with a picture of a semi-automatic pistol, but the word 'revolver'. So both your proposals are valid ;-)
On the detective's notepad there is 'Revolver' as a probable murder weapon, and in the box there is a semi-automatic pistol-style brass miniature weapon. Necessary Evil 13:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Iasked my mom because i have never played Clue as the board game ive only played it on the computer.My mom said yes when i asked her the question.Go to the above site and check it out.thecluemastermind 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.154.130 (talk)
I'm sorry, 68.82.154.130, but "your mom" is not a reliable source, or, at least, not a verifiable one. I'm not sure that it is very important, whether it is a revolver or a pistol. The only important fact is that it is a firearm of some sort, the only firearm in the game. We could point out Hasbro's internal inconsistency on the matter in the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Miss Scarlet or Miss Scarlett?

The old clue game that I own says Miss Scarlet in the rules and on the playing cards, but Miss Scarlett on the playing board and detective notes! Which one is it? I live in North America.--Soopto (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally Miss Scarlett in the British version, but was changed to Miss Scarlet in North America to reflect American spelling. Arswann (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
But it's a pun on 'scarlet'. Scarlett isn't British spelling, it's a woman's name (as in Scarlett Johannsen). 80.4.202.8 (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gen Con

Does anybody have a source for Clue of Cthulhu and/or PikaClue? I could find no reference to either game outside of this article, and a poster at BGG who remembers playing a Cthulhu themed game of Clue. Assuming the games were in fact played at the respective Gen Cons, it is most probable that they were one time events made-up by whomever ran the game itself. If either of these had actually been produced and sold, one would expect some independent source would cover them. —MJBurrage(T•C) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just changing the characters, some rules and playing it at Gen Con a few times doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Clue of Cthulhu was never an actual published game. It was fan made using a hand-made board incorperating cards from the Mythos CCG. I played in a session around 1995-1997 but never saw it at the GenCon since then. I still have the score sheet from the session I played. Omega2064 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I did actually play in PikaClue at GenCon 2001. I enjoyed it, but since it wasn't published, sold, or the like, I'd probably consider it not notable enough for inclusion. It did make my day to see it mentioned, though. I can certainly corroborate that it existed, and there could be proof that the events occurred in GenCon's event books. Still, not notable, in my opinion. Nimbex (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverend

"The North American versions of Clue replace the character "Reverend Green" from the original Cluedo with 'Mr. Green'. This is the only region to continue to make such a change. However, modern editions of the games now call him Reverend Green." Actually, in the French version of the game, Reverend Green is a doctor (Doctor Olive) and has always been. See French Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.77.22 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am recommending that Cluedo DVD Game be merged into this article due to lack of standalone notability. With no opposition, I will carry out this merge after February 5th, 2009. Please discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the DVD game, but it looks like it has a fair amount of content. As long as that information doesn't overlap what's in this article, I think it should stand alone. However, if a lot of the content is just restating what is already in this article, go ahead and merge. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 02:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think they should be merged, seeing as it's a pretty similar game. I don't think it really need its own page. 86.165.213.203 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, and as I suspected, a lot of it is just lists and restates what is in this article. It differs in some details, but they're unimportant as this game isn't much other than a DVD implementation of the Clue brand. Merge. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge Performed after having been seconded, and without significant opposition. The Cluedo entry for the DVD game was more than adaquate, so no content was moved. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of Print?

This article asserts that Cluedo is out of print. Furrykef recently marked the assertion as needing citation. I want to go one step further, and challenge whether this statement is even required. I'm not a Clue/Cluedo player, but about fifteen seconds at Cluedofan.com made me wonder if we aren't nitpicking here... That page states that new versions of the ORIGINAL game were introduced in 2003 (USA) and 2004 (UK), and another new version of the ORIGINAL game was release in 2001. See: http://www.cluedofan.com/index.html @ Current Eds and Cluedo 2000. My guess is that the person who wrote the assertion believes that the current editions are different enough from the "original" to no longer be referred to as the "original", hence the assertion that it is out of print. Anyone want to help sort this out? Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New video game.

I believe a new video game for clue has emerged. CLUE: Accusations and Alibis

Saw it here: http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1945505/?show_files=1#comments

Not sure how to edit and stuff, so ill leave it up to u guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.72.51 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While fan page links are typically not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:EL #11, that is not to say they are not permissible if they offer something substantial to additional research outside of the article. Indeed #11 specifies itself as a "limited exception" acknowledging the contribution such sites may offer. Aside from acknowledged authorities, which is Wiki's minimum standard, I typically evaluate the site against the prohibited criteria listed under WP:EL. In particular, the sites I would single out of those previously listed in order of contribution are TheArtofMurder.com, CluedoFan.com and Pete's CLUEDO site index. Of the three, Cluedofan.com is the oldest dating from 2001. The Art of Murder from 2002 and Pete's from 2005. So age is mostly irrelevant and should have nothing to do with content anyway. Next, of the three, Cluedofan is the only one that has commercial links and indeed a PayPal button right on the front page, which is a violation of #5. If not for the quality of the content, I would disqualify it on that basis alone. It is somewhat poorly organized as well which is why I have posted a separate link to the International Edition chart, until someone adds that info directly into the article. Finally, in terms of actual content, None is more comprehensive or well organized, presenting mostly the facts, as TheArtofMurder.com. However, Cluedofan has more detailed info about the film & TV series, if badly organized. Of the three, Pete's is the most redundant, but also offers more detailed information on the UK and international editions than the other two. Taken as a whole, all three sites contribute to the additional research about this game, much of which cannot nor, should not be included in the article itself. And they do so without violating some of the other restrictions of WP:EL, except as already mentioned. The others found here do not contribute anything over those already listed, and are indeed often lacking in comparison. To the age vs. content argument, I would suggest if another site improves over any of the three I have nominated, then regardless of its age it should be substituted in preference, especially if one of the other sites goes inactive. While I agree articles should not harbor endless links, there is no reason to exclude one of value simply to arrive at an arbitrary number of them.--Closettrekker (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Cluedofan.com has actually been around since 1997. Further a handful of Amazon links and a simple request for contributions does not violate WP:EL #05; Many sites commonly cited at Wikipedia (Board Game Geek for example) also ask for contributions, and have links to online vendors. EL #05 is about sites that "primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising"—neither of which describes Cluedofan.com.
With respect to TheArtofMurder.com the link I removed was to the forum (a violation of EL #10). After poking around more I would agree the site should be included, but we should link to the homepage rather than the forum.
I have not come across anything at Pete's CLUEDO fan site that is not covered by the first two sources, and believe that we should not include it in the External Links.
—MJBurrage(T•C) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Those Boardgame Geek are not acceptable sources either, however, in lieu of the difficulty in finding proper references with popular subjects, I am inclined to leave them until better substitutes may be found. As for Cluedofan.com, it's more than just those links to Amazon, et al. There site owner pitches his services as a web designer on the index page and also solicits donations. Clearly self-promotion is part of the purpose of the site. However, as I indicated earlier, it offers valid resources for additional research and the other arguable violations are therefore outweighed. I'm not sure about the use of the word "enduring" either as part of its description, as it suggests a bias within the article, regardless of how long it has been around, and it does not appear to be active having last been updated over 9 months ago. It also contains a number of dead links, so the site administration is a bit suspect despite it's longevity. As for Pete's you and I are of a different mind. There are editions on Pete's site which are not on either of the others and it provides some more details than either. I'm not sure why you feel the need to limit the number of links if all are reasonably valid and violate no other rules – 3 third party links are certainly not excessive, especially when there are no other serious contenders for inclusion. Nevertheless, I recommend that since that site existed on this article before either of us began editing the links section, that we leave it to another editor to cast the deciding vote and achieve a consensus.--Closettrekker (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect to Cluedofan.com, I don't have any attachment to the word "enduring", but I do think it noteworthy that such an extensive resource has been online since 1997. Most websites (even good ones) show up and then vanish after a few years. This one has been online for over a decade. As for Cluedofan.com primary purpose, it is clearly to provide free information to all about the game. Any mention of donations or the hosts design service is very minor, and clearly not in violation of the EL guidelines in this respect.
If Pete's page has information the other sites lack, than great, all I said was that I had not come across such information.
As for Board Game Geek, while it's use as a reference may be debatable (since it is user generated), that is different than External links. Much like IMDb it is a very popular and details resource, and should be an External link for any board game article.
—MJBurrage(T•C) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect to you, the age of a website, or its staying power and active status is mostly irrelevant – especially with archive.org. In fact many sourced citations used in active Wikipedia articles must be linked to archive.org because the original websites no longer host the article. This is the reality of the internet. As the internet has only come into its own recently in this century, age is not a fair indicator of its longevity. TheArtofMurder has also been online for almost a decade. Pete's can only be documented to it's current URL, and may well have existed prior. Cluedofan.com is only traceable back to 2002, however, it too had an earlier URL, which is archived back to 1997. If Cluedofan goes away tomorrow, it will live on at both URLs and would still be permissible as external links for the information they provide. If a new more comprehensive website appeared tomorrow and fit the EL criteria, I would lobby to include it. As for the permissibility of EL content, Cluedofan is the most commercial of the three promoting not only the host's web services, but sales of Cluedo through links from which the web owner profits via link-through – indirectly selling and promoting Cluedo games, rather than simply offering information (in fact his most recent update admonishes the visitor: "don't forget to buy the new Harry Potter Cluedo for Christmas!", and provides a link). The other sites are information only and do not promote any other business interests on the every page. That's my only point. It is an issue only because someone could set up a database of information about any subject, link it to Wikipedia and reap the profits from click-through traffic and sales. Finally, Pete's site has a minimum of 29 unique foreign editions, many of which do not duplicate any of the significantly fewer editions on the other two sites. Given the breadth of the game and popularity internationally, that is worth its inclusion as well.--Closettrekker (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of dice?

Hi. Should there be some sort of mention about the number of dice used? In older versions, only one die was used, but in modern versions it's two! I found some discussion on it in this TheArtofMurder.com forum thread: [1]. It just seems to be an interesting difference. -Jess @ 71.33.194.92 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely add this in! This was the specific information that I was looking for when I logged onto Wikipedia! Kudos to you, Jess! In Defense of the Artist (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Or "Cluedos" to you! :) 141.158.64.119 (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

MySims Agents Clue

A level (Boudreaux Mansion) in MySims Agents is based on the game Clue. I don't know where that should go in, or if it should go in. 99.241.163.57 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Two players?

"If the game is played with two people, the process of elimination diffuses the same information to both players. Such a game tends to pass quickly."

What does this mean that the process of elimination diffuses the same information to both players? If I accuse Professor Plum, and the other player doesn't have the card, it does not indicate whether the card is in the envelope or in my hand. This is no different than 3+ player games, other than there is no "which card did they show?" curiousity. This seems like a vague statement that could mean a lot of things but doesn't really mean anything, and it also sounds like original research TheHYPO (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Clearly a 2 player game is going to be less interesting than a multi-player game, but that is hardly surprising, but the fact that you can ask about cards in your own hand means that there are mixed strategies (in the Nash sense) that minimise information flow to your opponent while maximising your own information gathering. If you try to do a formal analysis of best strategy in a 2 player game, even by eliminating the board (so allowing any guesses) and restricting to a simpler set of cards, it is not entirely straightforward. So the quote sounds like unreferenced OR and I'll delete it. Francis Davey (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i posted about a norwegian variant

you are welcome to check how i wrote it but it is true. i have the scotland yard version of the game released by damm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rule variations

Might it be appropriate to describe rule variations between versions of the game from different locations (in particular between UK and North American editions)? I think there's already a mention of the number of players being given as 2 to 6 in the UK, 3 to 6 in NA. But I believe there was one other key difference: in the UK, once in a room, you could stay there as long as you want, making another Suggestion on each successive turn; but in NA, you are allowed only one Suggestion in a given room, after which you must leave the room (by door or secret passage), and either go to a different room to make a Suggestion, or return to the room you were in only after spending one turn out of that room (which does permit you to jump back and forth through secret passages between corner rooms). And I believe Hasbro in recent years "unified" the rules everywhere to the NA restriction. Another variation, I believe, was that in the UK a final "Accusation" was secretly recorded, so the Accuser then checks the envelope: if he was correct, he reveals his recorded Accusation, and wins the game; if wrong, he is out of play, but no one else sees what his Accusation was. In NA, a final Accusation is simply announced publicly like a Suggestion.

And speaking of Accusations, I believe the description of the rules in the article is a little misleading, in saying that a player's turn ends after a Suggestion. In fact, if the results of the Suggestion lead a player to feel ready to Accuse, he makes his Accusation on the same turn. (A restriction on this is that this follow-up is only permitted if the Suggesting player WAS NOT shown a card by another player -- a rule which I've always felt came about "by accident", but that's just my opinion. I think that someone composing the rules just assumed that naturally the realization of the final piece of information that was needed would come about by some Suggested aspect NOT being in anyone else's hand, thus "revealing" what must be in the envelope -- so, "unthinkingly", they wrote the rule for Accusation based on this situation; but in fact, if one has narrowed the last unknown down to two possibilities, then, NAMING one of them in a Suggestion will show whether it was the NAMED option, with no card shown, or the UNNAMED option, by the showing of the NAMED card, which equally well tells the Suggester what they need to know. I believe the writer simply overlooked that last possibility. Again, just my opinion, but I wanted to say it!) 141.158.64.119 (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Books: "Mrs. Peacock kills Mr. Boddy out of starvation"

Does that mean she eats him?!? 141.158.64.119 (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merchandising section?

The last section on this article is seems to be stating obvious and non-relevant information. Mainly "there is merchandise." I move it should be removed, unless there's some notability to it's mechandising outside from being a board game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexprod (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of addressing this question, most assuredly the merchandising section needs to be fleshed out, but yes ere are some notable Cluedo branded products that have nothing to do with the game ... Cluedo cologne is worth mentioning, as are the Cluedo scale model racing cars. But ultimately it goes to the brands popularity outside the game itself, and should remain for that reason alone -- albeit some attention needs to be paid to the entry.--Closettrekker (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed variants

I think that this sub-section needs major work. First, "unlicensed variant" implies that the game is unofficial, illegal, a homemade game or otherwise dubious. Also, "variant" implies that the game is very similar -- with simply altered rules. So, CLUE MASTER DETECTIVE is a fitting variant of CLASSIC CLUE.

However, Kill Doctor Lucky is a game in its own right, which has existed for over 10 years. You do NOT go around trying to deduce WHO did it, WHERE and WITH what weapon. There is no real mystery or crime solving or Sherlock Holmes. It's more like Jack the Ripper, if anything else. Just because it might fit into the category of board game and "murder" or perhaps even "mystery" (but not really), it doesn't mean that it should be listed here as an "unlicensed variant of CLUEDO". This is highly inaccurate and, I believe, inappropriate. It is no different than trying to list a HOW TO HOST A MYSTERY game or a bona-fide SCOOBY-DOO MYSTERY toy here in this section, which would also be highly inappropriate (and, no, I am not referring to SCOOBY-DOO CLUE).

MYSTERY AT HOGWARTS, on the other hand, is clearly a CLONE and so is MYSTERY MUSEUM.

WHODUNIT is another OLD game from the 70s and 80s that has its own legs and, really, is not appropriate for this section.

Here I must stop and suggest something. Unless a game has THOUSANDS of players or is AT LEAST published as a REAL game that you can buy from a retailer, as opposed to a one-off HOMEMADE game; I do not think it is proper to mention said game since it is obviously NOT notable. If someone whips up a homemade game in a week and a couple people play it one day or over a few days, it should be immortalized on WIKIPEDIA as a NOTABLE GAME?? I don't think so.

CLUE OF CTHULHU and PIKACLUE should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakewlk11 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved Whodunit to it's own page, and added Whodunit (related board game)--Closettrekker (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WhoDunIt

Does anyone else think that WHODUNIT should go, if anywhere, on its own page? Considering the length of the article, I don't think we need to describe in detail each and every related game. It is clearly not just a clone.

EasyRiding95 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Duration of game length?

In the info box it's stated that a typical game length is 15-60 minutes. Although more than likely to be true playing with 4 or less players, if you're playing with five or six players the game length is nearly always closer to an hour and a half, pushing two hours - due to having less cards at beginning, and more players to skip past to the left of you. Also they're are far more variables and observational intuition of other players actions needed in a 5/6 player game compared ot others, all of which develops much more slowly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.186.213 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How to pronounce "cluedo"?

Since this game is known as "Clue" in the US, I've never been quite sure how to pronounce the European name of "Cluedo". Is it cloo-dough, or cloo-E-dough, or cloo-doo?

The given pronunciation ( /?klu?do?/ ), with it's question marks, really isn't much help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.184.10 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Scooby Doo can doodoo, but Cluedo is smarter. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Cluedo board games

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue.--Coin945 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Orchid

For the main page, it would be appropriate to continue listing Mrs. White as the official suspect, with a footnote regarding the latest change to the game, creating Dr. Orchid as the sixth suspect. Official canon defers to the game's origin and Anthony Pratt's commercial release of the characters. It wouldn't make sense to completely replace Mrs. White in the roster with Dr. Orchid, anymore than it would been to have replaced all the characters with the characters from the Reinvention when that version was released in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.168.16 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cluedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Cluedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cluedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cluedo/Archive_1&oldid=1133095856"