Talk:Mornington Crescent (game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page is useless

What I understood so far: this game is a joke. Fans of the game try their best to make this article obscure. What I failed to understand: how do you play it. There're no example rules, not a gameplay session sample -- nothing. Is it a verbal game? How many people can play? What exactly is gameplay like? You guys made it far too obsucre. And the joke is NOT that you can't understand the game at all, the joke is that you can't learn the rules. But this article makes either impossible. 91.200.224.81 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

what people find hard to understand is why Londoners of a certain background would take such pleasure in pretending to play a game that doesn't exist. To understand this you have to look into the psychology of this class of Londoners. This "game" is however a major cultural icon, and so definitely needs a page. M-Henry (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"How do play this game?" is the same as asking "What are the rules?" Yes it is a verbal game. It is difficult to understand many games, for instance Mah Jong. The reasons behind this one is they keep changing the rules. The real question is why do you want to know the rules? The game is hard to understand, that is the game. This page is a discussion, so it can't be described as useless. 78.146.65.177 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

how would it be to add a short sample of transcript of a game, just to give people a flavour? 86.156.118.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Correction?

I'm pretty sure Samantha isn't ficticious, i seem to recall an interview with her in the Radio Times on the "Face behind the voice" (a slight misnomer in this case) column. I may be wrong but someone with the ability to do so should check

(very late reply but) I have been to an ISIHAC recording. We all applauded the thin air when Samantha didn't appear. She is as real as the rules of the game. The RT column was presumably in on the joke (was there actually a picture?) --Bth 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article:

(perhaps because it's very near another underground station and there's no need for two?) and was reopened in 1998-presumbably because of popularity with I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue by Humphrey Lyttelton. It features in the music hall song:

nope, it was for rebuilding. (have you seen the crush at nearby Camden Town? it's definitely needed... ;-) It remained closed for so long because London Transport ran out of funds for the work partway through, and the station was in such a state of reconstruction that it couldn't be reopened. -- Tarquin

---

What *really* is the game Mornington Crescent? Perhaps this should be directly mentioned somewhere, along with "Wikipedia contains spoilers"? I've never been able to find an exact description, although it appears to be a big inside joke.

Fans of the game may not appreciate me linking to a spoiler because even admitting that there is something to spoil is probably sufficient to spoil it. But this is an encyclopedia and needs to be factual, so I think material along the same lines of the article should be included (it is written by a private individual so it's quite possible we could obtain permission to copy bits wholesale).

---

I suppose this should be disambiguated. There is a street, a tube station, and a game. ( 18:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to say about the street. And splitting the station from the game will be awkward, since they are connected. -- Tarquin 13:00, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Although the article says "the rulebook itself remains eternally elusive", it has always been my understanding that the rulebook is maintained with inimitable accuracy by the lovely Samantha, who sleeps with it under her pillow. As it now runs to 17 volumes, she is running out of pillows. -- Gandalf61 12:04, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I think I heard that too, so added it to the article. Please feel free to edit. I think the article, either in spite of or because of my tinkering, still lacks clarity... which is kind of mildly amusing given the subject matter but not good for A Very Serious Encyclopedia such as this.. so really please feel free to edit! Pete 12:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Do we have a cite for the bit about Finchley Central being invented by play-by-mail types? I've heard (though have no authoratitive cite) that it actually originated with Cambridge University SF Soc in the '70s and in fact predates MC on the radio. --Bth 13:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

---

Tricky one this, because my understanding is that the game did originally have rules, involving an old A to Z and a tubemap - the rules involving certain combinations of moving between pages and between tube stations. In its current form the article is accurate, but I have read that it originally had sensible (if obscure) rules. Of course this site could be a spoof too... --/Mat 03:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that site is an excellent spoof. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

There is a Swedish version of the game where you use Stockholm Metro and Stora Mossen instead. // Liftarn

Presumably the rules of this game are monitored by Samantha's understudy Sven? :-) Adambisset 21:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know i'd like to understudy samantha ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Is it the case that in real life, the game was invented by John Junkin? Bonalaw 10:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Spoiler notice

{{spoiler}} <-- Added by a genius - a joke in the true spirit of the game! -- Picapica 21:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But sadly, not encyclopedic. ;(

Really? Do you think there isn't a spoiler (of sorts) in this article? OK, it's not "plot details", but did you never experience the thrill of worrying that there might actually be some rules to MC? I say put it back; maybe we could use custom wording instead of the template. --rbrwrˆ 09:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that really, a spoiler notice is necessary (some people spend several months belabouring under the impression that there must be some rules, somewhere :-)); the wording of the standard notice accomplishes this requirement and is also amusing - I don't really see the problem. James F. (talk) 10:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think a custom warning would be best. "Warning: Secrets revealed" might actually be a nice selling point for the article - so many sites prefer to maintain the game. Pcb21| Pete 11:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) [edit conflict]

Oh dear. I do hope I wasn't the catalyst for the spoiler notice's having been removed. The whole point of my message was intended to be that putting it there was a stroke of genius. Unless there are any objections within the next 24 hours, I propose to re-instate it (with thanks and apologies to whoever put it there in the first place) -- Picapica 19:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(The lovely Samantha writes: "In, out? Ooh, yes please.")

The spoiler notice has come and gone again a couple of times now. At the moment it seems that the consensus is that it should be in. --rbrwrˆ 20:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do object- certainly to the boilerplate notice (what plot?). I think that any other notice would be irrelevant- who is going to read the article except people who want to know the truth about the game?- but if anyone has a proposal, I'd be happy to see it. Markalexander100 00:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what plot? - precisely! But, OK, objection received. No jokes allowed in the Wikipedia then. -- Picapica 09:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have put the spoiler warning back in after Hyphz's "inappropriate tone" cleanup. The article is now much more encyclopaedic but also much more spoilery. --Bth 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ciphergoth.org link

An anon removed this external link:

• There are no rules to Mornington Crescent, clarifying the situation for newcomers who might have been misled

When I checked, it gives a "404 Not Found" error; however the ciphergoth.org home page implies this is a temporary technical problem. I'm putting the link here so we can check whether it ever comes back. --rbrwr^± 12:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Link reinstated as the page is back. I know the site owner as it happens and there was a short-term hiccough. --Vamp:Willow 23:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be working for me, I'll put it back then. --Lord Matt (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

example game

Somewhere fairly high up in the article (ideally before the spoiler), the article should really include a half-dozen or so turns from an example game, since it's very hard to understand otherwise. (Also, for the record, my vote is to include some kind of spoiler warning. It's not a joke, it's absolutely serious; some people may prefer NOT to read something they could figure out for themselves.) Doops 21:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, not having seen any response, I've acted on both counts. Doops 19:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Mornington Crescent" means victory?

I had always been of the opinion that people were trying to avoid being made to mention "Mornington Crescent", and that the person who was forced in to saying it was the loser, not the winner. This article says I am wrong in that assumption. Can anyone provide sources to show that the first person to be forced to say "Mornington Crescent" is actually the winner, contrary to my own impressions? - PaulHammond 15:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, certainly in the form of MC as played on the internet (which, incidentally, has almost diverged so much from MC as played on ISIHAC that they could almost be considered seperate games, and I've been meaning to add something to this article about the current state of MC on the net and how various conventions of play and understandings appeared), Mornington Crescent is the winning move (in all games, of course, where it is indeed the target: there have been numerous rulesets used where it's not), and I don't think this would have become standard had it not appeared (at least) to be so on ISIHAC. On the other hand, of course, one must look at the two most important principles of MC that are enshrined in every ruleset ever devised: "The winner is the first player to move to Mornington Crescent" and "No player may move to Mornington Crescent", in that order, often shortened to "Win" and "Don't win", which does imply somewhat that the winner of a particular game, while still being the winner on paper, may really have lost by bringing the game to a close.

Or I could just be talking crap. Your choice. Certainly I can offer no hard evidence, merely conjecture. How fitting, considering the article in question. Hig Hertenfleurst 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PaulHammond, I think your perception is pretty easy to explain: although calling "Mornington Crescent" makes you the winner of the game, it also ends the game immediately. If players are enjoying themselves, they want to drag out the game as long as possible — hence a reluctance to win. Moreover, if a player wins "too early" (whatever that means), he or she may well fear that other players will resent his/her impatience and recklessness. (It's like taking the last cookie — everybody wants the cookie, but nobody wants to be thought a boor by the other guests, so nobody takes it.) In short: while naming "Mornington Crescent" makes you the winner, winning isn't necessarily the object of the game. Or at least that's my understanding. Doops 16:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mostly fictitious

Cross-posted from User talk:195.194.178.251:

Under what circumstances does the game use rules that are not fictitious? --Theo (Talk) 16:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What are you trying to say? :) Rje 23:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• The first player to say "Mornington Crescent" wins seems to be used in most games and seems to be a non-fictitious rule.--Henrygb 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • My edit conflicted response was: :::With this edit User:195.194.178.251 suggested that the rules were mostly fictitious. I am unable to think of any rules that are not fictitious so I wondered why the qualifier was added. I suppose that one could pedantically argue that a nonfictional rule is that each player in turn names a station/street/whatever. Or that the game ends when a player names Mornington Crescent. But, as some of us know, even those are not mandatory! --Theo (Talk) 23:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

New word

This article makes me long for Korinthenkacker and Wikikrap. Hopfrog 19:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

This article is far too cryptic. It's meant to be an encyclopedic entry, not an extension to ISIHAC. The spoiler tag wants moving to the top and the article a clear explanation of what the game actually is, the fact that it is tongue-in-cheek and that there are no real rules. To be honest, if someone is curious enough about the game to look it up in Wikipedia, they probably don't care about spoilers, and spoilers only confirm that it is not a normal game with concrete rules. Give it up and put some sense into the article. BigBlueFish 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia isn't a comedy site, and trying to be cute will just make us look even more unprofessional than normal. Molimo 01:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Pish and tush! Have you not seen The International Mornington Crescent Association's Complete Rules of the Game (Cryer and Garden, eds.)? ISBN 0-68-986380-2 Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've bitten the bullet and been honest, much as it pains me. See if that meets the objections above. Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article and I think it now reads much more clearly and informatively. I like the current opening in particular, with the first paragraph explaining what MC is, then the spoiler notice, then why it is so notable. No doubt it can and will be further improved, but in my opinion it is no longer the cause for concern that it was. Thanks to everyone who's contributed. BigBlueFish 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Belle and Sebastian

In case this goes to an edit war, it turns out that the song doesn't have any direct connection to the game, in a Q&A on their web site. "Chris told me about the game show, and it turns out the origin of the song and the show might be the same- I was moved to write when the tube I was in passed through the ghostly station while it was being renovated." --McGeddon 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to remove exposé here. Who agrees?

Hey everyone,

I find it a bit of a letdown to find that the Wikipedia page on Mornington Crescent exposes the game as a joke. I know it's supposed to be a serious encyclopædia, but... still! I think there's something quite cool about there being a big conspiracy, which even encyclopædias are in on :)

Who else thinks that this page should be re-written in order to perpetuate the joke? EuroSong 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not me. — ciphergoth 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It pains me deeply, but for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, the explanation should stay as long as it's properly spoiler-warning-ed. (Though the very fact that there is a spoiler gives the whole thing away really. But I'd much rather people read it here than at Ciphergoth's rant.) --Bth 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also say no but for different reasons. Try writing a fake article that "explains the rules". It is quite hard, and probably won't be that funny - MC is somewhat funny normally because of the brilliance of the comedians in terms of comic timing, intonation etc. Words on the page just aren't the same. Pcb21 Pete 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ENC. Sorry, Eurosong. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [Including minor change by Pcb21]

Absolutely it should. Does no one remember the joy of the dawning realisation that they're taking the piss? The rules section should hint that it's improvised throughout but stop short of shoving the fact down the reader's throat - so the list of similar games is right out. If debunking is strictly necessary then do it by linking to other sites that would ruin the fun, rather than doing it here. If someone really needs to know then they'll click the link, if they don't then they won't. 15:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In my case, there was never a time where I thought the game was real. I heard an episode of ISIHAC on the radio (one where MC was not played), looked the article up on Wikipedia to learn more, and found out about both MC and the fact it wasn't real at the same time. (I did, however, initially think Samantha was real). In my opinion, we definitely should not pretend the game is real in the article - it's a serious encyclopedia, not a fansite. BillyH 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid this will have to be the case. However, there is always Uncyclopedia Popexvi 13:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my comment from 2004, and move it here. When I came to WP looking for information on Mornington Crescent, it was specifically because I believed it to be a joke and wanted to see if that was true. I would have been disappointed and angry if WP had carried on the joke. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the order of the sectons around, so that the person reading it will not realise till the last possible moment what is going on. I for example only had to read 3 paragraphs to discover the 'true' nature of the game. No content was deleted, just reshuffled to give people more of a chance of not finding out. Hopefully everyone agrees that this is in the spirit of the game! --Wireddeath 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Marvellously in the spirit of the game, yes, but this is an encyclopedia. First of all, reading the article it makes no sense to see sections in that order so it's just confusing. People might even scroll down for links (which always occur near the end) and be appalled to find out the truth they didn't want to see! Second of all, there is already a spoiler warning at the top. People have worked hard to make this article encyclopedic and easy to access the information they are looking for. I reverted the reorder. BigBlueFish 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be removed altogether. I think I can understand both sides of the argument. Wikipedia should be a serious encyclopedia containing facts so the article should tell the full truth about MC. On the other hand it seems a shame for it to be so easy to find out the truth. I remember the first time I came across the game some years ago on a forum I posted on from time to time. I was completley confused and fascinated by the game and was keen to figure out what the hell was going on. I googled it and was faced with a page of results with baffling rules and sites where you could play - as far as I could tell it was a real game. I watched the game on the forum and gradually started to wonder if it was all just made up. I tentatively joined in and my contributions to the game were taken well so I carried on. I soon got the hang of it and was making up variations and breaches of the rules all over the place. It was really good fun. These days if you google MC the second result is this article. Most people will click on that result first and then instantly discover that the game doesn't really exist. This is a shame as far as I'm concerned. Let me make this analogy, you are shown a magic trick and are really thrilled by it. You spend hours trying to figure out how it's done and eventually discover the secret. You will rightly be pleased with yourself and gain some real enjoyment both from the discovery and from performing the trick for others (and of course you would never tell how it's done). Being able to find the secret behing MC so easily is akin to being shown the secret behind a magic trick - instantly disappointing. To stretch this analogy a little - Wikipedia would never reveal how a magic trick is performed, similarly it should not reveal the secret behind MC. I would like to see the article removed completley. There would then be no silly entry and no falsehood but no ruining of the magic either. What do people think? Dave86.145.108.85 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I disagree particularly with the idea of removing the article in the spirit of preserving the illusion, I do have to point out one flaw in your analogy, in that Wikipedia does indeed reveal the secret of some magic tricks. However, it strikes me that to intentionally remove the article would be unlikely to preserve the mystery anyway; given the depth of coverage given to other games, to have no coverage on what appears to be the most complex and popular game on the show would be a significant anomaly. People would simply look elsewhere and this isn't the only place online that reveals the truth. Far better that people find out here, where the subject is treated in a sensible manner, than, say, through CipherGoth's rambling discourse on the subject, which also appeared on the first page of Google results when I went looking. --Tailkinker 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is. When I first encountered this article there was no spoiler warning at the top. That spoiler should be enough to make people think twice before continuing, if they take notice of spoiler warnings, that is!

The article needs to remain, or the encyclopedia is incomplete. The only thing that could be done is to revise the intro paragraph:

The game is intended as a parody of complicated strategy games, and particularly satirises the complex rules and terminology that evolve around games such as contract bridge or chess.

...but surely the words 'parody' and 'satirises' accurately describe the game without, as it were, 'giving the game away'?

Nothing in the TOC box 'spoils the fun', so readers have to scroll or jump down past this before anything really spoiling is stated.

I understand your concerns. (Consider the description of Samantha on the ISIHAC page: Claiming she doesn't exist? Sacrilege!) But I think we must give way to the principles of WP here, bending the text as far as we can without breaking the rules...

EdJogg 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is truly beautiful. The majority of clear and rational thought says that the article must stay as it is because it's encyclopedic, however, there appear to be no citations in any of the sections that claim that the game is a hoax, therefore, by encyclopaedia standards, those sections should be removed, or clearly marked as disputed and rewritten. I'm reminded of one of my late Grandfather's favourite moves (Barkingside via Newbury Park) from which only the most experienced player can hope to salvage a draw. --Ear1grey 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise you'd been part of the conversation here, from the tone of your edit summary. I agree there is a lot of original research in the article, but it's disingenuous to cram all the hoax-relevant material into a single section towards the end, and write the rest of the article "in spirit".

I think clear context would do as good a job as citable sources - that ISIHAC is a comedy radio programme, that many of its other rounds are playful nonsense-word games, and that the organisations and tournaments it mentions do not appear to exist in real life. There's no need for the Ministry of Silly Walks article to cite a clear source defining the ministry as fictional. --McGeddon 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly Walks is a good example and (thanks to the Life of Brian) it led me to the God article, which (by happy coincidence) follows a very similar structure to this morning's revised MC article: it describes the history, then discusses the doubt. I certainly wouldn't advocate adding a spoiler to the God article on the premise that there's no proof. In contrast, the current (reverted) MC article, presents unverified speculation as spoiler-delivered fact; and thus implies a lack of neutrality.

Everyone seems to be agreed that MC started with a basic set of rules, so it is correct to discuss these first, which the re-written article did - it then discussed examples from broadcast games which illustrate the perceived complexity of the game, and then having established those factors, it describes why some people speculate that there are no rules at all. The structure is only disingenuous if there is proof that there really are no rules. Perhaps in an earlier section its necessary to state that there is some controversy in the interpretation and inference of the rules which links to the doubting section.--Ear1grey 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spain and Dollis-Breaking

Fair enough if it's from the programme rather than original research, but I imagine they're both one-off jokes rather than part of the more general "recurrent themes". The first-turn-win still sounds like it's repeating itself, though, that Brooke-Taylor's was also the immediate victory that "occurred once on air". Or wasn't it? --McGeddon 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The time I heard it didn't involve a great deal of explanation - just an argument. Maybe the are the same one, but the argument was considered a lengthy explanation by whoever wrote it. The other thing though was that the initial example suggested he got away with it, whereas he didn't in the example I was thinking of. I thought I would pop the other bits in seeing as they gave an idea of the humour in the show. You can delete them if you want, I suppose.Popexvi 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me. I must 'listen again' to Monday's episode. :) Popexvi 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Station

The Mornington Crescent tube station is on London's Northern Line between Euston and Camden Town on the Charing Cross Branch. However, if you travel between the same two stations on the City Branch, the station simply isn't there. Now you see it, now you don't. The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.

Never having been to the UK (let alone London) and knowing little about it's subway system I'm a bit confused by this. Does it mean the City branch uses a different line/track between Euston and Camden or does the City branch simply skip Mornington Station (go through it but not stop). I guess it's the former although who knows. I admit I don't quite get why the fact the City branch goes through the same two stations but uses a different line is so strange but whatever :-) Nil Einne 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the two lines are side-by-side, and travel parallel, but only the Northern Line has Mornington Crescent station cut into that particular tunnel.

They certainly aren't parallel, they only appear that way on the diagramatic LU 'map'. the two branches are quite different, constructed separately at different times and in many places running at entirely different depths from street level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.147.186 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Sometimes one line runs above the other, and then flatten at stations (as is common on southern sections of what is now the Northern Line). H. C. Beck had great difficulty diagrammatically trying to depict the Camden branch and tried various treatments; see "Mr. Beck's Underground Map" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mr-Becks-Underground-Map-Garland/dp/1854141686 how do I find the ISBN on Amazon?).

SimonTrew 2009-Jan-14 07.45 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected I looked farther down the discussion and realise Paul has treated this more thoroughly. However I leave this here with the book reference in case it is useful-- Beck has drawings of the actual crossover tunnel layout (not diagrammatic but rough sketches to their actual 3D layout). I doubt of much use but see no harm leaving it just on the discussion page.

SimonTrew 2009-Jan-14 07.52 GMT

Mornington Crescent does not have (and has never had) escalators

Photos of the station interior from 1930 shows the presence of lifts, and several other sites (e.g. BBC News and Wikipedia) state that the 1992 closure was for repair to lifts not escalators There really is no room for escalators in the station anyway. Therefore I've reverted the change by User:HLGallon --128.40.76.138 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Game Theory?

That bit about game theory.. doesn't make any sense to me, and I do game theory. Surely if I want to win Mornington Cresent, I just say "Mornington Cresent"? This seems to be a bit like an attempt to start sneaking silliness into the article, but I'm happy to have a reference to something and be proved wrong. Mrjeff 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section says "the real objective of the game is to announce 'Mornington Crescent' in the turn immediately before your opponent was going to do so" (my emphasis). Is that really true? Surely the the real objective of the game is to announce "Mornington Crescent" in any turn before your opponent does so. If so, it is, as you say, amenable to game theory. Bluewave 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There _is_ a description in one of Douglas Hofstader's "Metamagical Themas" columns to this aspect of the game, in which he compares it to nuclear deterrence - the ideal time to launce a nuclear strike is just before your opponent plans to. Could someone dig out an exact quote and definitive reference? I recall that Hofstader calls the game "Finchley Central" rather than "Mornington Crescent" in the article, but don't have my copy to hand. Tevildo 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hofstader quote

Here's the section in question. What you really want to get your hands on is the Manifold (apparently a journal of the University of Warwick) article that Hofstader is quoting. (I'm formatting it as a subsection to avoid excessive indentation and blockquoting. I'll happily take suggestions for better formatting.)

In an article in the British journal Manifold titled “A Pandora's Box of non-Games”, Anatole Beck and David Fowler set forth a panoply of rather silly games that are halfway between true games and pure jokes. The tragedy is that so many of them resemble current global political behavior. For instance, consider the game they call Finchley Central:

Two players alternate naming the stations on the London Underground. The first to say 'Finchley Central' wins. It is clear that the 'best' time to say 'Finchley Central' is exactly before your opponent does. Failing that, it is good that he should be considering it. You could, of course, say 'Finchley Central' on your second turn. In that case, your opponent puffs on his cigarette and says, 'Well,...' Shame on you.

Another amusing game, quite similar to the ones described in the column, is called Penny Pot:

Players alternate turns. At each turn, a player either adds a penny to the pot or takes the pot. Winning player makes first move in next game. Like Finchley Central, this games [sic] defies analysis. There is, of course, the stable situation in which each player takes the pot whenever it is not empty. This is a solution?

At the end of their article, Beck and Fowler add:

M. Henton of New Addington noted with horror that there is an isomorphism between Finchley Central and the game commonly known as 'Nuclear Deterrent'. 'It occurs to me that we should work very fast to analyse the non-games, before we are left with a non-world.'

--Hofstader, Douglas R. (1985). Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern. New York: Basic Books, Inc. p. 714.

And here is Hofstader's citation, from his bibliography:

Beck, Anatole and David Fowler. "A Pandora's Box of Non-Games". In Seven Years of Manifold, edited by Ian Stewart and John Jaworski. Nantwich, England: Shiva Publications, 1981.

--Glp 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm still not positive what they are trying to get at, but I assume they must have some point. Of course, that also doesn't reference Mornington Cresent directly :)--Mrjeff

Don't think about it too hard, Mrjeff. Hofstadter is a very intelligent man, but he was completely out to lunch on the subject of the nuclear arms race. ~ CZeke 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, Finchley Central is apparently a variant of Mornington Crescent.--Glp 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In Search of Mornington Crescent

Was this really billed as the second part of Mornington Crescent Explained? Because, looking at the link, it looks like a different documentary entirely, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with explaining the rules, rather, it's about someone trying to find them. BillyH 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Aldgate East

I am suspicious of the reference to Aldgate East which mentions a rucksack. I can find no reference to the move in any of the recordings I have. It's possibly a bad taste reference to the involvement of Aldgate station in the 7 July 2005 London bombings. --Ear1grey 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "powerful and devastating" is very suspicious. The rules rarely, if ever, require the participants to be in possession of anything other than themselves. I don't remember a rucksack being mentioned, although it would take me several days to check all my recordings! I would be inclined to remove the line, after all, it is unverified. EdJogg 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentence was created in two parts the rucksack portion from an unregistered user in rev 64934314 --Ear1grey 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Variants

All of those variants look to me like random things someone made up for a laugh. Does anyone have any references to any of them? I think this article more than most needs references, else it will just fill up with stupid randomness Mrjeff 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognise most of them from, er, the Encyclodaedia Morningtonia, which is a Wiki on a spoof game and thus a bit of a moving target. I would suggest that the closest to a legitimate reference these entries are likely to have would be a combination of 1) The Encyclopaedia Morningtonia, and 2) an existing web-based game using the ruleset cited. The archives of the York MC server, for example, span over 800 games and about 12-15 years. Barring transcripts from ISIHAC radio broadcasts, that's about as legitimate as on-line Mornington Crescent gets. If the consensus is that the Encylopaedia Morningtonia and the York/Parslow/Orange archives) are good enough references to count, I'll try to dredge up some pertinent game transcripts and add the links. I know we've played Stora Mossen at least a couple of times.

Rules?

It is not factual to state that Mornington Crescent has no rules. I notice that all statements to the effect that the rules are "imaginary", "fictitious" or "arbitrary" are unreferenced and as such are mere supposition.

Speaking as an MC player, I have to agree that calling the rules 'fictitious' is slightly unfair. They're not fictitious, they just . . . have very little bearing on actual gameplay. And there's so many of them that no-one could possibily remember them all anyway. And they are definitely trumped by the game's social rules, as I mentioned in my update the other day. But the distinction between 'fictitious' and the actual truth of the matter is such a fine one that it's probably imperceptible to non-Crescenters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.54.207 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2007

Surely the "real" rules run along the lines that each player takes it in turns to name a location (usually, though not exclusively, a London Underground station). The winner is the first to name Mornington Crescent, but only after there have been sufficient Byzantine discussions of gameplaying strategy, and quibbles about the (fictitious) "rules" during the course of play, to afford a sufficient degree of amusement to the audience (who are assumed to be "in the know" to some extent about the true nature of the game) that the players can bring the round to a conclusion? Ghughesarch 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one way to play it, yes, but it's not the only way. Depending on the forum it may occur as little as 5% of the time, at a rough guess. More than 20% or so rules quibbles stops being funny. Which means considering rules quibbles to be the primary object of the game is mischaracterising it, IMV. Even listening to ISIHAC, which is the primary source for this sort of thing, it is apparent that rules quibbles, while common, are by no means the whole story. 82.69.54.207 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (remembered signature this time)

Is Wikington Crescent a self-reference?

Wikington Crescent was recently removed from this article and the stated reason was Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. However, I do not think that Wikington Crescent in this article is a self-reference of the sort that we are supposed to avoid. Avoiding self-reference does not mean that we are supposed to pretend that Wikipedia does not exist; it just means that we should not mention that this article is part of Wikipedia within the article. Here's a qoute from WP:ASR:

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia....If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia.

I think that the Wikington Crescent part of this article was written in a very neutral manner, talking about Wikipedia without hinting that it is within a Wikipedia article. Plus, I think it is clearly relevant in this context. — Lilwik 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I have restored this section, changing the text slightly to explicitly refer to Wikipedia, as if being viewed from outside. That way, on any mirror/fork sites, even Wikipedia is linked. I have left a comment within the text, though whether future editors are with-it enough to understand the need for the slightly unusual wording remains to be seen.

EdJogg 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia dilemma

I'm in a bit of a quandary, 'cause I know that there exists a rule about vanity posting on Wikipedia (and rightly so). However, I also know that some people (I confess - like myself) who thrive on learning about the most useless bits of trivia possible. I also know that all facts need to have some form of citation, lest they be deleted.

So here's my problem. I happen to know that the lone clapper who applauded a move in the MC game played at Belgrade Theatre Coventry back in 2002 (or there abouts) was the same person who was a lone clapper at the Derngate Theatre Northampton in 1996. If I were to post that bit of trivia, it would end up with a citation tag, or worst case, get deleted. However, if I were to add the source (i.e. I know it is true, because that was me) it would certainly get deleted under the vanity rules.

So, I have decided to post this here and let you good people decide the fact's fate. If you think this is vanity/far too trivial, then ignore it. Better still, delete my entire post. I promise I won't be offended (If you could let me know your reasoning first, please, that would be appreciated). However, if you think that the trivia might be worth something, then please consider adding it to the text. Thanks! StephenBuxton 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that this really wouldn't survive purely on the vanity rule and the absence of any accepted citation. Personally, as a long-time ISIHAC nut, I think it's kinda cool, but I suspect that the information really wouldn't be considered notable enough to include, even before getting to the citation and vanity issues. Cool, though... --Tailkinker 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I say we can't really add it to the article, but we can certainly leave it here. I think most people interested in trivia on subjects like this check the discussion pages as a matter of course; I know I do. Daibhid C 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikington Crescent notable?

Wikington Crescent has just been removed again, this time due to lack of references and notability. I wonder if that is how the notability rules really work. We know that Mornington Crescent is notable; shouldn't that be enough to make anything related to it that we list under Actual Games automatically notable? Surely anyone researching Mornington Crescent would rather have Wikington Crescent listed than not listed.

Plus, the lack of references isn't a verifiability issue, since Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent is more than enough to verify it. And why remove Wikington Crescent when there are several actual games marked with citation needed because they have absolutely nothing to verify that are real. -- Lilwik 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Every fact in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. Anyone researching Mornington Crescent would ideally want a clearly sourced document that contained only notable material about the game; to be honest, I wouldn't want a paragraph about Wikington Crescent, as it currently stands - I'd click the link and read about a Wikipedia game without any context. It doesn't tell me anything more than "somebody once thought that it was a good idea to make a page about this Wikipedia game".

Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent is obviously a self-published source, so isn't sufficient for verifiability purposes. I imagine it's being deleted ahead of the "citation needed" entries because it might seem to be presenting itself as its own source (which is apparently the case). --McGeddon 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite every fact. A fact doesn't need a reliable source if it is not challenged or likely to be challenged. I base this upon WP:V#Burden of evidence. We all know the Wikington Crescent is real, no one is challenging the truth of that. If it is likely that no one will ever challenge it, then it shouldn't be removed just because it lacks a third party source.

Remember, we aren't talking about just a paragraph describing Wikington Crescent, we are talking about every single mention of Wikington Crescent in this article. You misspoke when you said, "I'd click the link and read about a Wikipedia game without any context," because you cannot click "the link" when there is no link. If this deletion remains, someone could read this article from top to bottom and have no idea that Wikington Crescent even exists. Is that what we really want? -- Lilwik 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If Wikington Crescent wasn't in any way notable - well, yes, that's exactly what we'd want. Wikipedia is not a directory. If I make up "Golfington Crescent" and play it with a few friends and make a web page about it, I wouldn't expect it to be included in an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting use of the hypothetical. I take it that you are undecided on the notability of Wikington Crescent. I think that it is not notable for itself, making it not worthy of its own article even if enough information could be found about it. However, it is famous by association, just like Nixon's Enemies List from WP:NOT#DIR. We include Wikington Crescent not because Wikington Crescent is notable, but because Mornington Crescent is notable. I would never have known about Wikington Crescent if it hadn't been mentioned in this article, and I appreciated having it there.

WP:NOT#DIR is telling us not to create articles just to collect things which are individually not notable into a big not notable lump. It does not say that we cannot create lists of notable things, and especially important in this case, we can include lists of not notable things in an article about something notable, so long as the list is strongly connected to the subject of the article. Nixon is notable, so a list of his enemies is okay. Mornington Crescent is notable, so a list of actual games is fine, even though none of them are notable individually.-- Lilwik 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Nixon enemies list can be clearly sourced, and the list of Crescent variants should be as well. There isn't a canonical list of Crescent variants in a desk drawer anywhere, but if we trim it back to variants with reliable sources, we'll have an encyclopaedia-quality article.

By your logic, my hypothetical "Golfington Crescent" would be fine, possibly even on a list of variants in the "Golf" article (because Golf is a notable sport)? --McGeddon 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I wonder what it means to be encyclopedia-quality. If it means removing information that would likely be of interest to someone researching the subject of this article, then encyclopedia-quality is a step down from the current state of this article. If "Golfington Crescent" were real, then perhaps it should be included. The more factual information, the better, even if some of it is pretty minor.

Verifiability is about proving the truth of a statement. For things like historical events, a website or anything self-published would be a ridiculous source, but for some things websites are perfect sources. Is there a way to make pizza with peanut butter? I don't know, but if you claimed that there was, all you would need to prove it to me was a link to a website with a recipe for peanut butter pizza. To prove the existence of a game, just give me a website with the rules. Since we don't need notability, the website should be all we need. (And several of the games still listed in this article don't even have that.)

Since it doesn't look like there will be a consensus to put it back into the article any time soon, I'll move the deleted paragraph here so that it might some day be moved back into the article, if we ever change our minds.

Wikington Crescent: A game played using the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia. Players start with a 'Random Article' and must navigate to the Mornington Crescent tube station article by clicking through links on the random article and subsequent articles. The fewer links used, the better the play. For example: Matterhorn to Mornington Crescent tube station can be played in four links.

-- Lilwik 04:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of verifiability says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (my emphasis)

Verifiability goes for everything; there isn't a Wikipedia policy saying that the historical event pages have to be verified through strong sources, but websites and pizzas don't matter and can cite any old Geocities page or blog entry. As I said earlier, the lack of reliable source for Wikington Crescent means that it is of very little use to somebody researching Mornington Crescent - there's no contextual information about the game, no history, nor any proof that anyone has even played it. It's as useful as me linking to a blog entry containing my rules for Golfington Crescent.

The encyclopaedia-quality of the article is raised by keeping all facts verifiable. If someone wants to research the unconfirmed rumours and trivia of a subject, they've got the rest of the Internet. --McGeddon 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember what verifiability is supposed to achieve. Something is verifiable if the readers of this article can check that it is true. We all know the Wikington Crescent is real, and Wikington Crescent proves it. You're right that there is no history or any proof that anyone has ever played it, but that's why no one has suggested that we claim that anyone has played it in the article. We claim what is verifiable and we leave out the rest. Wikington Crescent is verifiable, it's players are not.

As to the issue of reliable sources: you seem to think that a website can never be used as a reliable source, even when the website is 100% proof. For example, couldn't an article about a website use the website itself as proof that the website exists? Because it is so obvious and easily verifiable that Wikington Crescent is real, there is no verifiability issue for it. Any verifiability policy that seems to claim otherwise must therefore fall under WP:IAR, based on improving the content of Wikipedia and common sense. -- Lilwik 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"We all know that Wikington Crescent is real" - well, yes, but if it's not the subject of published sources, then it isn't appropriate to write about it in an encyclopaedia. Golfington Crescent would be real; CheapViagringtonCrescent.com would be real if I registered the domain - this doesn't mean they're automatically appropriate content for Wikipedia.

Web sites should not be used as sources for their own articles (WP:PSTS), and you'll notice that all Wikipedia articles on web sites are careful to use third-party press and academic coverage for sources, rather than the sites themselves. But even taking the view that Wikington Crescent is an abstract game, and the web page for it is independently documenting that game, it's a self-published source and fails WP:SPS.

(The reason I brought up the verifiability of Wikington players was to counter your suggestion that Wikington Crescent would be of interest to someone researching Mornington Crescent. If all they could derive from the article was "someone once posted the rules to Wikington Crescent in an unmoderated Wikipedia namespace, and that's all we know", then it wouldn't be of much use to them.) --McGeddon 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not the subject of published sources, then it's not appropriate as the subject of an encyclopedia article, I agree with that, but we're not talking about the subject of an encyclopedia article. The subject of this article is Mornington Crescent, and it satisfies every criteria for notability.

The verifiability policy is not intended to apply here. You are abusing the spirit of WP:V. That policy is intended to apply when the truth of a statement could be in doubt.

Wikington Crescent is of interest to someone researching Mornington Crescent. I know this because I came across this article when I was researching Mornington Crescent and Wikington Crescent was interesting to me, with or without any players. Why wouldn't it be interesting? -- Lilwik 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I say, all you can derive from it is that someone once wrote the rules up in an unmoderated Wikipedia namespace. WP:V talks specifically about "material", not "article subjects", and policies like WP:NFT apply to individual paragraphs as much as entire articles.

I really don't see how your pro-Wikington arguments can't also be applied to Golfington Crescent or FreeViagringtonCrescent.com - the fact that the link to Wikington Crescent can be made as a wikilink doesn't make it any more valid than an external link to any minor self-published site. --McGeddon 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My arguments can be applied to those things just fine, and if they existed, I'd be in favor of including them in the article. Why not? They are just entries in a list and some entries can be more or less interesting than others.

Let's not get confused. It's notability that is about article subjects, not varifiability, and no one has claimed otherwise. Verifiability is the one that is supposed to be about things which are open to doubt. According to WP:V, Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, and that doesn't apply to Wikington Crescent. If we want to say that Wikington Crescent is unencyclopedic, that's fine; I'm beginning to think that maybe it is rather trivial and not worthy of even an entry in a list in the Mornington Crescent article, but let's do it for the right reasons: It's not because we are doubting the existence of Wikington Crescent. -- Lilwik 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is as much about verifying the importance of something as verifying the "truth" of it - "here is a link to a game I made up today" is, as you say, likely to be challenged as unencyclopaedic, and it would require a reliable source to verify that it wasn't. --McGeddon 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is about verifying the truth of it. Notability is about verifying the importance of it. There's nothing in WP:V about importance. 199.60.7.166 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

This is a bit off-topic but I am just starting to get used to editing (and doing very minor ones) and if nothing else this discussion has informed me more to the real to-and-fro of editing decisions than anything I have read on the wiki style manual etc. Thanks, you may not each have got your way but you have helped one poor sap!

[[user:SimonTrew|SimonTrew] 2009-Jan-14 08:14am GMT —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Creebage

"Creebage: In one episode of the television series The Monkees, the character of Micky Dolenz (played by the actor of the same name) invents a card game known as Creebage on the fly, also, as in the Star Trek episode, to distract an old-style gangster holding him captive. This game also has incomprehensible rules. While the gangster is distracted, Micky escapes, with the gangster holding up some cards and shouting, 'But, I have a creebage!'"

Any chance this is Cribbage and actually a *REAL* game? I know it's reaching, but it's possible...there's no such thing as "a cribbage" in the game, so that is a case in point against it, of course

---

Sorry not learned how to do the fancy edits yet (help me!)

The crib is the spare hand that the dealer gets. But I am not sure this has *ever* been called the cribbage (i.e. has opposed to the crib, or box). I don't have Hoyle here but I imagine an original version of Hoyle (which certainly describes cribbage) would have an appropriate explanation.

[[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew] 2009-i-xiv 08.24am GMT —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Locations

Until the forthcoming season, at least according to my understanding, ISIHAC was never recorded "on location" -- this was merely part of the joke. This year, however, they will actually be touring the country. Unless anyone can disprove this, I think we should correct the entry as it is presumably inaccurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.250.231.36 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be corrected if other editors can't disprove a single editor's "understanding". If you've got a source for this, please share it, but several friends of mine have gone to recordings of the show in various cities, in the past ten years. --McGeddon 09:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of games with unspecified rules

I've moved the list of "similar games" out to its own article at list of games with unspecified rules, given that the concept is wider than Crescent alone - this could use some sourcing and expansion, if anyone would like to help out. --McGeddon 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOT#DIR. These games are not individually notable, so the list of all such games is not notable either. Such a list only has value if it is connected with Mornington Crescent. At least, if you take WP:NOT#DIR seriously, though I'm not sure why Wikipedia shouldn't be a directory. -- Lilwik 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I understand that this "game" (a joke, mostly) is a fairly significant cultural phenomenon, but the article doesn't really focus enough on why people find it funny/entertaining. Some extra "out-of-universe" commentary about the game itself would be welcome in the article. Furthermore, the section on Rules seems extremely lengthy for a game that has no set rules - I don't know if it's trying to be tongue-in-cheek, but Wikipedia articles are not repositories of comedy, and the section comes across as confusing and even contradictory. - Chardish 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think trying to explain WHY something is funny is impossible. MC and ISIHAC just is funny, hilarious in fact. I'd also take issue with 'a fairly significant cultural phenomenon' - MC is a VERY significant cultural phenomenon and a fundamental part of the institution that is ISIHAC

Roger 83.67.126.86 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article Breaks Wikipedia Rules

This article breaks Wikipedia rules.

The reasons for this are clear.

Wikipedia asks for FACTS that are REFERENCED to PUBLISHED ARTICLES - opinions do not count.

This article expresses the OPINION that the game is a 'parody', with 'no rules', yet none of the published articles it references claim the game is a parody, or say it has no rules. On the contrary, they do mention MANY rules, but simply do not seem to explain them very clearly, none of them mention the word 'parody' which is unreferenced and should therefore be removed.

In order to comply with the rules of Wikipedia, the word 'parody' should be removed. Instead of saying 'it is a game with no rules' it should say 'many articles talk about the existence of a set of rules, though none actually explain fully what those rules are'.

Does the Wikipedia article on Father Christmas say right at the top that he is a FICTIONAL character? What a bunch of spoilsports we would be if it did. Riversider2008 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple reason this article breaks wiki rules and 'appears to contradict itself' is because the topic covers a piece of radio entertainment that is supposed to be a contradiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.54.186 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged the article with the NPOV criteria, for several reasons:

NPOV insists that: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)"As I have suggested above, (under 'this article breaks wikipedia rules' the sources that are referenced in the article contradict the content of the article. (I.e. the article suggests that the game is a parody, while the referenced material does not)

This means that the content of the article either is NOT VERIFIABLE or that it contains ORIGINAL RESEARCH (which is not permissible).

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. However this article is clearly biased in favour of those who believe the game to be a parody with no rules. It is rather like an article on God that starts with the sentence "God does not exist". NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Most published sources assert that MC IS a game with rules. (the fact that none of these sources explain what the rules actually are does not invalidate the overwhelming weight of the published consensus.

The article therefore lacks balance and fairness of tone.'Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not. Here individual wikipedia contributors have unfairly characterised MC as a PARODY, in defiance of the published material that exists on MC.

Here we must pull out the word PARODY and let the facts speak for themselves Riversider2008 (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag I inserted has already been deleted - without explanation, I wonder if the person who deleted it even looked at my explanation above. Tags like this should not be deleted until the dispute is settled. I see no evidence of any attempt to even investigate the dispute, let alone settle it. Riversider2008 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had word from the person who deleted the NPOV tag, I am pasting the content of my user talk page for the benefit of everyone involved in this dispute:

I'm currently disputing the Neutrality of the POV expressed in the Mornington Crescent article, my reasons can be found on the talk page of said article. My NPOV tag was removed within 25 or so minutes of me posting it, without any attempt at explanation, despite my own lengthy explanation on said talk page of why I did post it.

I feel this violates the principles of the NPOV tag, which states 'please do not remove until the dispute is settled', 25 minutes seems a remarkably quick time to resolve a dispute that actually goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is all about - accordance with published and referenced reliable sources. Riversider2008 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I saw your comment. Surely you too agree that your perspective is absurd and contrary to the goals of an encyclopedia -- Wikipedia articles cannot obscure accurate facts, even in the name of fun. You know as well as I that MC is a parody game. If the article is not sourced to that effect, the solution is to find sources that do not "play along", and not to revise the article for the sake of a thirty-year-old joke, whose secret is now widely known anyway.

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Spoiler -- it is a matter of tradition that Wikipedia contains spoilers and does not, except in its general disclaimers, warn readers of that fact. While I appreciate and to some degree sympathize with your position, I fear that it woulf take a lot of time and effort to reverse the relevant policies. In the mean-time, neither you nor I can in good conscience advocate a Mornington Crescent article that does not mention the very important fact that the game is an elaborate and good-natured fraud. — Dan | talk 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point Dan. It is your OPINION that the game is an 'elaborate and good natured fraud' until you can find a reliable source that says the contrary, those who have written this article have found plenty of articles that say that MC is a game with rules (though these rules are not clearly explained in any of them). They have NOT found reliable articles expressing the view that MC is a parody, despite your assertion that this is 'widely known', if it was widely known, it should be easy to find references to back up this view. Until people do, the word 'parody' should be removed for the sake of NPOV. Otherwise, I might equally argue that it is 'widely known' that God does not exist, and amend the Wikipedia article on God accordingly. Riversider2008 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your willful obtuseness is in some sense honorable, but please understand that there is no place for the perpetuation of running jokes on Wikipedia: an encyclopedia aims to describe, not to participate in, memes. Since you ask, I have looked up and added two sources to the article; these were not hard to find. Your comparison with debate over the existence of God is not apt: nobody except for a new player (a victim of the joke) truly believes that Mornington Crescent is a serious strategy game. There is no serious philosophical debate over this matter. — Dan | talk 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the NPOV debate

Dan, I feel it is you that is being obtuse. The rules of NPOV are clear; undue weight must not be given to the editor's personal opinions, the article must reflect the weight of the published material.

If this seems absurd to you, then the problem is not with my 'obtuseness', but simply that the RULES of Wikipedia do not neccessarily concur with it's GOALS.

You have added two references: The first from 'Ciphergoth' - hardly the name of a 'reliable source' - I'd put the word of Mrs Trellis well above that of anyone called Ciphergoth, and that's saying something.

Ciphergoths article NEVER uses the word 'parody' once and admits the existence of 'the honest players'.

Even if his article was more authoritative and better written, it would not destroy my argument. For every published reference that claims MC is fake, and so far as I can see, there is only this one, there are page after page of sites that claim the game is real, and hundreds of examples of real games that have been played by real people.

Stonehaven's name sounds a lot more authoritative than Ciphergoths I admit, it has a good solid ring to it, rather like 'Northern Rock' but 95 % of Stonehaven's paper backs my own argument, only in the last couple of sentences does he have some kind of weird abberation from his own case and make the claims that MC is a joke, and even here he posits the existence of at least 2 rules.

NPOV rules about proportionality apply - the content of the article should reflect the quantity and authority of the published sources, and the quantity and authority of published sources OVERWHELMINGLY suggest that MC is a real game with certain rules, that simply exist somewhere else from wherever the person is looking, roughly in the proportion, 95 - 5% as Stonehaven's article more accurately reflects.

If this was an undergraduate student essay, with so many references that contradict the main argument, and so few (only 1 and a half!) backing it, that undergraduate would be told to go home and re-write it.

If you insist on the word PARODY, then it should be in the final paragraph - a carefully neutrally worded sentence like: 'a certain individual with the name of 'Ciphergoth' disputes the reality of MC and claims it is a parody, but then you do get all sorts on the internet' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you want Authoritative sources, you can't get much more authoritative than TATE Britain, where a MC game may be held on March 7th 2008:

http://www.mornington-crescent-rule.fsnet.co.uk/mornington-crescent-tate.htm Riversider2008 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Update - I've apologised to Dan on his talk page talk for my suggesting that he is being obtuse during this discussion, and suggested a way of resolving this NPOV dispute amicably, and in line with Wikipedia rules and guidance. Riversider2008 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

'Parody' deleted.

I have deleted the contentious word 'parody' in line with the agreement reached with Dan on my talk page.

Under this agreement, we will 'let the facts speak for themselves'. The weight of published material will be reflected in the article, and readers will be allowed to draw their own conclusions about whether the game is 'real' and whether it has rules or not, based on the aggregation of facts.

Under our agreement, Dan will thoroughly re-organise the article, which contains a large amount of unreferenced material and needs a lot of tidying up. He make sure the article has the full academic rigor expected of any Wikipedia article, and purge it of all forms of whimsy or light hearted humour. This is a task which I believe he has shown himself to be well suited for. Riversider2008 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being a parody yourself, but Wikipedia isn't about agreements between editors and people rewriting articles to one another's personal standards, it's about communal effort to meet basic Wikipedia guidelines. Dan only talks about "helping clean the article up" on your talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems extraordinary to be so sensitive about the word "parody". ISIHAC itself is a parody of a panel game (or at least it was when it was first broadcast...nowadays the distinction between serious games and parodies of themselves is much more blurred). In one of the early series, Lillelton described ISIHAC as an "anel game" — something that takes the pee out of panel games. Nobody can seriously claim that Mornington Crescent is other than a parody. Bluewave (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor who has never heard of the game should be able to verify for themselves that the game is a parody, rather than having to just take the word of the other editors - the article needs to cite reliable sources that confirm the game to be a parody (or at least to put the game in the strong context of "a game played by comedians on a comedy panel show"). --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia - its aim is NOT to summarise the Truth about any particular subject, as such a task would be impossible for many reasons. Its aim is to summarise the published material on any subject. The word 'parody' DOES NOT APPEAR in any of the referenced material.

The best way to let people get to the Truth is to stick to what is available in well-referenced authoritative sources (rather than people called 'Ciphergoth' and 'Stonehaven') and then to LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

Please read the NPOV rules, they are very clear on this.

Where there are disputes between editors, there MUST eventually be agreements, otherwise stupid edit wars break out. Our agreement is based on Wikipedia rules requiring all articles to be well referenced to reliable sources, and to reflect the weight of published articles.

Including the formulation 'a game with unexplained rules' is a definite improvement by the way Riversider2008 (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'm sure we're all familiar with WP:V. I trust that you'll be helping us out in the search for sources, and in improving this article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Mornington Crescent is played in the context of ISIHAC. The BBC bills this (verifiably) as "an antidote to panel games" and described it as a programme in which the panelists "are given silly things to do by chairman Humphrey Lyttelton". So Mornington Crescent is verifiably a silly antidote to a game. That sounds to me like a parody! Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a leap of WP:SYN to conclude that the strapline of "antidote to panel games" means that all of the programme's constituent parts are antidotes to whatever you, the editor, think that they're parodying. It's going to be tricky finding a good source to confirm that it's a parody, when even BBC News enjoy playing along with the joke, but it's important to get there without original research or deductions. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If the word "parody" is really so important (which I still dispute), how about this verifiable quote: "named after the Mornington Crescent tube station in London, it consist of moves between stations on the London Underground, the winner being the first to reach Mornington Crescent. The game's secretive, complex-sounding rules and dramatic manner of play are intended to parody self-important strategy games...." Taken from William Fotheringham: Fotheringham's Sporting Pastimes, Robson, 2006. ISBN 1861059531 p.32. Bluewave (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This certainly sounds more authoritative, but is it "a reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

At the moment, based on the references cited in the article, and the great weight of material out there on MC still left unreferenced (including the BBC, which does have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) the statement that the game is a parody is still a 'Tiny-minority view'.

Riversider2008 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent is a game, and it does have rules. It has a winning condition - a play of Mornington Crescent. It has an elegant way to incorporate as many new rules as its players see fit to include. It includes wit, bluff and a lot of foolery. But a major part of its purpose is to subvert established games such as chess, bridge, and notably panel games (Call my Bluff, Just a Minute, Give us a Clue), and of course encyclopaedia entries. For this reason, trying to treat it in the same way as, say, Bridge, will inevitably lead to confusion. It only works if you don't take it too seriously. In this respect it has more in common with open-ended games such as playground tag; the main object is to have fun playing. Not everything that is called a game has winners and losers. Playground tag; rough-and-tumble with a pet dog; Charades; Exquisite Corpse; I-Spy; Role-playing games; nevertheless, these are all legitimate games, and so too is Mornington Crescent.

212.32.36.253 (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Typography changes

I have used space&ndash;space throughout instead of the mix of em dashes, hypens, en dashes etc. I have mostly removed the inverted commas from the word 'rules' as unnecessary; the spoofness of the game is still apparent. I have removed the reference to Samantha being fictional; really, she's such a fundamental part of the game that her fictional status should be covered by all the other references. And, alas, I doubt she is sufficiently notable to get an encyclopaedia entry in its own right.

'In Search of Mornington Crescent' - at the time the history of the game was written, I doubt there were even plans to produce a separate program on the rules. I infer that the later appearance of the separate program on the rules occured much, much later, once the BBC decided that there was in fact sufficient comedic potential in so doing. Part of the joke of the first program was that (at that time) they had no intention of producing the second instalment. Alas, I have no direct evidence in favour of this, just a long-time fan's experience of ISIHAC and its associated foolery.

I also altered "The game, ..., is designed to satirise complicated strategy games". Mornington Crescent? Designed? No, talking about the great game of MC having been designed is one of the most misleading elements remaining in the entire article.

212.32.36.253 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Variants - original research and citations

The variants section is interesting to a point but lacks credibility because it fails to reference sources and thus we rather lack any information as to why this might be significant or notable. I'm not trying to be rude and myself hate to see a good read peppered with citation needed markers but they are needed. This makes the examples look like original reporting and might be more suitable for other sites...

Specifically my edit note addresses the issue of the Thanet variant. I live in Thanet and am active in the local blogging scene and yet have never encountered the variant mentioned. That is original research and therefore not a valid source for adding or removing (also argument from ignorance is rather a failure of logic). I would be fascinated to see this mentioned outside of the Wikipedia but without citation this is not possible.

I hope I have made my reasoning clear as a significant amount of thought (including sleeping on it) was put into my action.

--Lord Matt (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

en:Mornington Crescent (jeu)

I'm not convinced there is not an error at the bottom of the page but I have a cold and my brain is in need of sleep. Could someone look at the "en:Mornington Crescent (jeu)" link for me. --Lord Matt (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's linking to the French Wikipedia, it needs to be "fr:". I've fixed it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Loose Ends interview

"Interviewed on Loose Ends (BBC Radio 4) on Saturday 22 March 2008, Barry Cryer and Geoffrey Perkins admitted that Mornington Crescent was invented as a non-game." - this sounds slightly weasel-worded, as if Barry finally broke down and confessed, after thirty years of interrogation. Was this really the tone of the interview, or were they just discussing the game and mentioning its non-game status in passing? --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A possible origin of the game?

Hail everyone! :-)

Whilst having a quick leaf through the National Rail - Routeing Guide last night, it suddenly occured to me that a lot of the rules listed there regarding how passengers may route their journeys on the National Rail network are very similar to a lot of the "rules" one often encounters during a game of Mornington Crescent. I'm wondering if the original BR Routeing Guide might've been an inspiration for who ever actually invented the game...Possibly ISIHAC? :-)

Obviously this is just a vauge connection that I've made between two seperate things at the moment, which is why I havn't added it as a possible origin in the article...But given the apparent parallels between them, I wonder if this might be worth researching by someone who knows a bit more about Mornington Crescent than I do? :-)

Hyperspeed (Talk) - 03 April 2008CE 17:57 UTC 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the National Routeing Guide only dates back to 1996, so it's not the inspiration for MC. Nice thought, though... Tom Harris (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is This Page Supposed to be Confusing?

One of the biggest problem that Wikipedia has is that so many articles are written by people who are so familiar with a given topic, that they don't bother to even consider the notion that someone who is not familiar with that topic might have to actually read and understand the article. This article in particular really befuddles me. After reading through the whole damn thing, I've been able to understand that this is a game where people take turns, and name off locations on the London Underground. I also understand that rules are constantly being made up throughout the game. What I don't understand is the mechanic by which these rules are applied, or even what types of rules are commonly made. This article fails miserably at introducing this as a topic to those ignorant of it. All it is seems to be an act of auto-fellation for those who are familiar with the game. Let us please remember what the purpose of Wikipedia is, people. Brash (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be entirely due to some heavy editing from an anonymous user on the 9th, which implied that rules somehow exist and are enforceable, and apparently removed any mention of players merely pretending that these rules exist.

This all seems to be needlessly misleading, and I've now reverted the edits. Does it make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, again? --McGeddon (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that Mornington Crescent is one of those subjects (like Dame Edna Everage) where it's part of the joke never to admit the actual truth (i.e. that there are no rules). It's understandable, but wrong, that some people want to preserve the illusion, even in Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The point here is to stick to what published sources say about Mornington Crescent, and not inflict our own opinions about whether it has rules or not onto the reader. Too many editors have directly contradicted what most public sources say, or imply about MC: that it has at least some rules, that these rules are confusing, deliberately so, that it's very hard to find out what the rules actually say, and that the consequence is a very, very funny game and brilliant radio Riversider (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case we have to be very careful with published sources, because most of the published sources are in fact aimed at continuing the joke, and not at providing factual information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We cannot approach published sources with the attitude that we will only use those that agree with our own point of view about a topic, or that we can dismiss as irrelevant or untrustworthy those that clearly disagree with our point of view. We have to make articles that reflect the balance of the most reliable published sources, whether we like it or not. For example, the Wikipedia article on Jimmy Wales lists two different birthdates for him, even though he was probably only born once, and even though the date he himself gives is most likely to be the truth, because the published sources disagree about when exactly he was born. Riversider (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's published sources like this or this or this that I mean we have to be careful of. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite possible to find sources (on many subjects, including Mornington Crescent) that are themselves parodies. These sources do not necessarily begin with the word "parody" in big friendly letters. We therefore have to rely on the common sense of editors in selecting serious sources, rather than parodic ones. Just because a lot of MC sources (maybe the great majority) perpetuate the joke, doesn't mean that we have to abandon common sense. (So I think I'm agreeing with DJ Clayworth...and I'm also wondering if the words olim meminisse juvabit mean anything to this particular DJ Clayworth?) Bluewave (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a failsafe procedure for working out which sources are parodies? Or is it simply that any articles which do not agree with your version of the truth will be branded as parodies? As editors we must not behave in such a POV manner. If the sources are authoritative, then we must respect what they say, even if we disagree with what they say. Wikipedia does not seek truth, it seeks to reflect the sum of what humans know. These are two quite different things. Riversider (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Do you have a failsafe procedure for working out which sources are parodies?" Well, I can't speak for any other editor, you understand, but I have one; I call it "using my brain". It's how I tell the difference between, for example, a published source that tells me Iceland has been having financial difficulties, and, say, one which says that the Empire has foreclosed the mortgage on Tatooine and is sending Darth Vader round to kick the door in.

Seriously, your argument appears to be that we should not dare to tell the difference between fiction and nonfiction. A 12-year-old anime editor could spot the flaw in that. 212.32.71.214 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to what the above editor has said, the consensus of several editors using their brains is as failsafe as you can get. It is certainly a lot safer than simply giving equal weight to different sources, without considering whether they are parodies. Earlier this week, The Times published a picture of Mervyn King removing Gordon Brown's testicles with a sword. Readers of The Times did not need to be warned that this was a piece of political satire, and not the depiction of an actual event. Similarly, I doubt if any Wikipedia editors are trying to update the Gordon Brown article to say that he is now a eunuch because they can't dismiss this source as irrelevant or untrustworthy. People have to use their common sense about which sources are intended to be serious and which are parodies or satire. If anyone is unsure whether they can tell the difference, they shouldn't be contributing to an encyclopedia. Bluewave (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The cartoon in question illustrated a very serious political point - a turning point in the Brown Primeministership where his strategy for dealing with the credit crunch suddenly had the carpet pulled out from underneath it. It could easily be used as a source by a skilled editor to illustrate an article on Brown's handling of the credit crunch, if we ever decided such an article was needed. It is extremely arrogant to suggest that even a group of editors can achieve an 'objective' point of view about any particular issue. This is neither neccessary nor desireable in an Encyclopedia, as it would represent a novel synthesis, rather than a good faith attempt to reproduce and summate the balance of what all the authoritative published sources say about a particular topic. If we can't understand this subtlety, then we shouldn't be contributing to an encyclopedia Riversider (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. In saying that the cartoon illustrates a serious political point, you clearly appreciate that it is a piece of satire. I agree that it might well be used as a source, but it would be used in the context that it is indeed a piece of satire, making a serious political point, and is not a literal depiction of an act of grievous bodily harm. You have shown that you can distinguish between parody and serious sources and use them appropriately. My point is that any reasonably competent editor can use their judgement to do precisely that. And they may need to rely on that judgement in the case of some of the Mornington Crescent "sources". Bluewave (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are getting complicated - and dangerous - here Blue: You say we can use satire, but we can't use parody. You say we can use our 'judgement' to rule that the vast majority of the published sources are parody, and that we can therefore safely ignore them, and only use the sources that agree with our POV. I don't think this is a safe way to build an encyclopedia - we need to use our brains, but we must not use our brains TOO MUCH. Too much use of our personal judgement inserts deadly quantities of POV into our articles. POV is a particularly deadly poison as it has no detectable colour, flavour or smell so we apply it to our work without any awareness of what we are doing, especially when we think we are using our 'judgement'. Riversider (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I smell something

"According to the show, Mornington Crescent is one of the world's top four most-played games, behind Chess, Scrabble, and Stump."

Rubbish! What is stump? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be a joke, as the show is a comedy series. I've removed the sentence from the lead, though, as deadpan jokes aren't appropriate there. --McGeddon (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory information

I've cleaned up the origin section to remove the need for the contradictory information. I hope the modification I made makes it an accurate statement describing the uncertain origins. I was not aware of the "make up a game the producer won't understand" element to the origin; I'd always thought that it was Geoffrey Perkins who was behind it. Well, they are both verifiable, if contradictory sources, so I guess they should both stay. Still, if my edit is incorrect, there's always the undo button. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

deliberately not explained

I notice that the formulation 'a game whose rules are never explained' has been changed to 'a game whose rules are deliberately not explained'.

No explanation has been given for this change, which makes a significant difference to the emphasis of the article. Can the alteration be justified by the material cited? Has the alteration been deliberately not explained?Riversider2008 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a quote of "Quick, let's invent a game with rules he'll never understand." in the 'Origins' section, and nothing to suggest that the lack of their explanation is an accident. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

mmm, this tends to suggest deliberately confusing rules, rather than deliberately non-explained rules, but I suppose if we debated every nuance, nothing could ever be settled, so I'm prepared to live with 'deliberately not explained'. What do other people think?Riversider2008 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think saying that the rules are "deliberately not explained" is more accurate — denoting the fact that not explaining the rules is a crucial and underlying aspect of the game. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

if the quote had read "Lets invent a game, but not tell him the rules" there would be no dispute, but the quote suggests they wanted to invent a game with rules that were too complex to be understood by a BBC producer. Luckily for them, this was a relatively easy task.Riversider2008 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fully" Explained rules

There are lots of examples of rules being explained in the citations, the humour comes from the problem that the rules being explained are out of context of the full ruleset, incongruous and incomplete. I think the phrase 'the rules are never fully explained' is therefore more accurate than 'the rules are never explained'. A statement that 'the rules are never explained' is similar to the statement 'there is no such thing as a black swan' which is clearly contradicted by even a single example of any rule, or part of a rule being explained during the show, or by a single recorded sighting of a Black swan. Riversider (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

This article on the Museum of Bad Art was a featured on the front page of WP today. This article is a clear and excellent example of how we should be approaching sources which we may suspect of being 'parody'. It gives a fair and accurate reflection of the content of authoritative published sources, without attempting to censor, interpret or use excessive levels of editorial 'judgement' - a lot of really important learning points that I have been trying (and failing) to make in this talk page. Riversider (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Finchley Central

I was initially exploring the origins of the game Finchley Central due to a possible connection with the origin of "The Game". That proved to not be possible using reliable sources, sadly, but I did confirm the fact that Finchley Central was invented before Mornington Crescent. It is identical to Mornington Crescent; only the name of the "important" station is different. It appeared in a maths magazine published by students at Warwick Uni in 1969. I emailed John Jaworski, and received a scan of the article, "A Pandora's Box of non-games". It is one of a series of games that defy analysis by Game Theory. This pretty much clinches the fact that Mornington Crescent wasn't invented by ISIHAC, it was "borrowed". Fences and windows (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

IF the goal is to say "Mornington Crescent", wouldn't the first player always win? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not as simple as that. I don't think you understand the rules properly. Poujeaux (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

75.118.170.35: Here's an analogy. Think of playing tug-of-war with a dog. You could win instantly every time you play because you happen to be stronger and hopefully cleverer than your opponent. Would you? In MC, it's as if all players are humans on their own move, but dogs on everyone else's move. 82.69.54.207 (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The game is a hoax invented to deliberately confuse and entertain people, and a quick win would (often) spoil this joke. As it says in the article, "You could, of course, say [the winning move] on your second turn. In that case, your opponent puffs on his cigarette and says "Well, shame on you"." --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You win by saying "Mornington Crescent", but the AIM of the game is not neccessarily to win. It is to entertain, have fun. There are plenty of other games and sports where there is no winner, or where taking part in something is more important than winning -(this is a part of English culture which is poorly understood in the USA, and sadly dying out in England too) winning quickly if you are a skilled player is like constantly scoring aces while playing tennis with your 6 year old son. Riversider (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)