Talk:Nerts

Revisions

It has been 7 months since I posted the first discussion to help with this article. I have had no replies or messages, so I started editing without any help or discussion. I hope you guys feel the article is objective and better organized. If you have something to contribute let me know. I have redirected a bunch of the confusing variations and scoring methods to a forum. Make a wiki page of your own to post other variations or post them in the forum using the links a the bottom of the page. I could really using grammar editing still...that is not my strong suit.

To the contributors of variations: Your words are not lost...they are at the forum link at the bottom of the page. If we want readers to get the basic concept of Nertz...then we have to condense the article in an attempt to prevent confusion. It was really a mess before.Nertzfan (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Nertzfan

Much cleaner and way easier to read. Thanks

Out of Control

Editing for this article is getting out of control. Would a real editor that knows about Nertz help me with it please? Someone, maybe just to mess around, changed all of the "Nertz" words to "Knertz".....and the article is titled NERTZ! You are free to add that name to the list, but don't try and say that Nertz is really spelled with a silent "K". Thousands of players all over the world recognize and spell Nertz as "Nertz". It has been this way according to many players for at least 70 years. Check the 40+ Nertz groups on facebook, Nertz videos, articles, and pictures that have been posted across the web. The majority of these finds would lead anyone to conclude that this is the most common spelling for this game.

The stupid, weird in-family written rules being posted are out of control as well. We need a concise article that is straightforward and devoid of extraneous details. Like the made up rules of one group. A general set of rules will suffice. Everything else can be linked or put on another page.

And fellow editors....read my post at the end of this page please. This article would confuse the hell out of anyone looking for a balanced report on the game. HELP PLEASE! Who will help?? Nertzfan —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

NNA

What is NNA, it can't figure out what it means. Also this section is hard to read. maybe putting bullet points in would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.200.167 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The NNA is an abbreviation for the National Nertz Association. They have specific terminology listed at the bottom of the article as reference for NNA members, events, and other interested parties. The article could be a bit more tighty. However, there is a lot of information on this game and many different rules and variations to record accurately. Like many other wiki articles this one is still a work in progress but I think it is still very informative. I had no idea that there were so many variations and other Nertz related sites to view until I found them here. It wasn’t too hard for me to understand the article, so "good job" thus far editors. Keep it up! Random wikireader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.2.196 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Racing Demon

Since this article and Racing Demon are about the same game, it seems they need to be merged. One would remain the main article with this text, and the other would become a redirect. It might be best to pick the most common name of the game (though it has so many names). Does anyone know which is the most often used name of the game? I always knew it as either Pounce or Racing Demon, but I'm guessing that it really varries. -- Natalya 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same game. My grandmother (who was unbeatable) used to play Racing Demon as a child, and it was like Klondike. So Racing Demon can refer to a totally different game, whereas Nertz cannot. I can't remember the exact rules but I remember you could build anywhere but perhaps there was a one-card restriction when moving to other users pile. Macgruder 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like they are all perhaps variations on the same game? The article certainly needs a lot of cleanup, but hopefully at some point the different variations can be clarified, and if it turns out that one is totally different, it can be moved. -- Natalya 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Racing Demon

You can merge it if you want to. I think Nertz is more common. I've never ever heard this entitled Racing Demon, and I've known about the game for years.

I'll wait a few more days to see if there are any thoughts against it, and then merge. Keeping it at Nertz is fine, after all the article is already here, and Racing Demon can become a redirect. -- Natalya 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to edit category pages? There is a Solitaire Games category page that I would like to add Nertz to, but I don't know how to do it because when you try editing it no source code comes up. -- Berenlazarus

You were on the right track - to put a page into a category, you add a tag at the end of the page with the category name, like this:

[[Category:CATEGORY NAME]]

So for this page, I added [[Category:Solitaire card games]] to the page, and it's now in the category. I also removed [[Category:Nertz]] from the category Solitaire card games, since it does not exist and does not belong there. -- Natalya 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I meant to remove the Nertz on the category path, the one that I added. Glad to know how to do that now.

Since there were no objections, I merged the two articles by taking the information from Racing Demon, adding it to this article, and making Racing Demon a redirect. -- Natalya 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoorah

Hmm... the addition about the "Hoorah!" variation of Nertz is interesting, but if it was simplu invented by a few people, is it really encyclopedia worthy? It might be good to determine if the variations listed are standardized, or if any variation is able to be put in the article. -- Natalya 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the version I've always played, which I learned from my parents which they learned from their parents etc so I think it's ok.

Use of the word "team"

Since Nertz (as far as I'm aware) is played with single players playing against each other, is it really appropriate to use the term "team"? Regardless, after the recent edits, the article requires some copyediting. -- Natalya 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We've only ever played it in teams. But that may be because we were playing it at the Baptist Student Union in college and frequently had a dozen players so it only made sense to work in teams. --Kitsunegami (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NNA has standardized rules

I am sorry but much of the information on this site is completely erroneous and exactly what the National Nertz Association is trying to eliminate. This game HAS been standardized and has a rulebook! The rules posted by McDell are right. Unless you all have a national nertz association to back you up, please leave them alone.

Also, a posting for National Nertz Association (NNA) is forthcoming. It's an important organization that is currently blossoming in the southwest and its rules are being used everywhere from Mexico to Utah to Pennsylvania. It is the only National Nertz organization in existence and has the only official standardized rules.

While the variations of the game that are posted on this website are of historical value, the standardized version of the game (as per NNA rules) is the only officially recognized Nertz game (and thus the rules in the main article should be specific to the NNA's codified rules).

Before reverting long-term edits, please give some evidence, and cite your sources from the national nertz association. You cannot just make claims without citing them; it is a Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, your edits will be reverted. -- Natalya 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NNA's Standardized rules not recognized by Hoyle or Pagat

NNA might have standardized rules, but who's to say they're the real authority on Nertz? As referenced in the current version of the article, the NNA's rules have not been accepted on an international level the same way as Chess or Monopoly has. Wikipedia is not just about the American viewpoint. By definition, National American refers to American players. I'm from England, played Nertz a lot of years, and none of my friends acknowledge NNA as the "official" rules of Nertz. Neither does the international community for that matter. The NNA's rules, until they are accepted the same way the Chess and Monopoly rules have been, are as much a variation of the basic gameplay of Nertz as any other set of rules. -- berenlazarus 12:12 a.m. September 3, 2006.

For those interested, I tried googling "National Nertz Association," as well as "National Nerts Association," and only came up with three hits, all of which came from MySpace. Not only that, the rules listed within the article currently (not the NNA rules) are very similiar to those listed on Hoyle's card website, House of Cards, which links to the Pagat rules (listed in the article now). I consider both the Hoyle rules and the Pagat rules as much more authoratative than some so-called NNA. If anything, the rules in the main article should conform to Hoyle and Pagat, as they are respected as an international authority on card game rules, not NNA.

And here's another question. This guy says the NNA rules are the only "officially recognized Nertz" rules, but none of the game sites and card sites I have been too use either the NNA terminology, or their set of rules. Who exactly is recognizing them as the official rules? If the only people recognizing the NNA rules as the "standard" rules of Nerts are the NNA themselves, that's just a circular argument and they have no real authority. -- Berenlazarus -- 12:22 a.m. September 3, 2006

That is true. Unless an organisation is recognised as an authority, it is not an authority and its claims are just claims. The NNA are no more an official body than Bicycle's books of "Official Rules" are official rules. It's just a book title. There are official bodies for some games, such as the World Bridge Federation and International Skat Players Association, but not many. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the National Nertz Association a big fat lie?

I can't find the NNA anywhere on Google. Who put it into the article? Because unless they're trustworthy, I'd recommend taking all mention of this apparently nonexistent association out of the article. If anyone has any information on it, though, please tell me, because I'd really like to find these people if they exist. Twilight Realm 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the person above who is talking about McDell is, in fact, McDell. I may be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. And, McDell hasn't made any contributions to any article except this one. Sadly, I think that this person is lying to us. McDell, if you're reading this, feel free to prove me wrong. I'd be happy to hear that there really is an NNA. Twilight Realm 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When it was first put into the article, it did seem pretty questionable. I would support removing all references until any proof of its validity is given. -- Natalya 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Until there is some evidence that this is real, I am going to remove all refernces to it; Wikipedia (and its mirror sites) are the only ones who mention it, and we should not be perpetuating false information. -- Natalya 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence of the NNA at www.playnertz.com. The site is still in construction, but there is some information there. Please re-post the terminology listed for the NNA. Anyone will soon be welcomed to join once the site is finished. Also, you will be able to receive any Nertz related information that you would like. Please note that NNA members currently use this medium to look at specific terminolgy for play on a national scale. There is a copyrighted version of a specific Nertz rulebook that the NNA uses, however the terminology posted here, is not infringing on those rights. So please let it's members have a place to get this particular brand of Nertz information. Just because you can't google information on something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Members of the NNA would appreciate it if a few people did not resort to defamation or writing slanderous material about the NNA. Our intention is not to lie about an organization, it is to help it's current members get the information that they need. This is especially the case seeing that the same two to three people are writing that they personally have never heard of the NNA. Since Nertz is a game with many variations, you should respect the way a certain organization chooses to play it, as well as not be so critical of it's rules. The other rules can just as easily be disputed as well. Thank you for your concern and your future ackowledgemnt of the information posted by the NNA.

That's great that we have a URL, and we know that it does exist. Thank you for providing that information. We still have a ways to go to clean up this article, though. And we still need to be able to cite our sources that give us information about the NNA, which is somewhat hard to do as the site is under construction. We look forward to being able to add more information as more becomes avaliable. -- Natalya 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

It seems pretty evident that this article requires a lot of cleanup. I think we can work together to make a much more encyclopedic article, and I hope everyone agrees. If we take a look at (just for example) Solitaire, it is a very clean article, and rather straightfoward. Even though there are surely many variations on the game, it deals with them well. Of course Solitaire has a broader range of types, and therefore is able to have a list of related games, but we can probably make cleaner sections of the various different rules for Nertz.

This article is certainly hard to deal with, because Nertz has many different variations and names, and it surely keeps changing. This is when we need to keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. To quote, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." By using this policy, we should be able to clear up this article to a more encyclopedic standard.

It's important that we find reliable sources about Nertz, so that we can cite them appropriately. Even though many of us surely know many different variations of the game, if there is not reliable evidence for them, we cannot include them in this article. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia. We must remember, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.

If we can appropriately cite this article, we can make it pretty great. It will take a lot of work, and I'm sure we won't all be happy as information is changed/removed, but I think we can do it, as long as there are dedicated editors behind it. Can we do it? -- Natalya 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One note: the introductory comparison to chess and monopoly seems to be unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.224.8 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive Clean Up!

A clean up is needed and was pointed out by an editor recently. I suggest that we (readers, editors, and Nertz experts) make a collaborative effort to clean up this article. Please Log in and respond to this discussion if you would like to help.

Since I am not an expert in grammar, I will not just start editing this article without first some feedback from fellow readers and editors. So write some feedback and let the rest of us hear your suggestions.

First: To start things off, I am recommending a minor edit. I noticed "Speed" is listed as another name for Nertz. Through the internet and my own personal accounts, the game Speed is more largely known as a card game more closely related to Spit (if not the exact same game). So my recommendation is to remove Speed from the list of alternate names for Nertz. Am I correct about overall point of view that Nertz and Speed are two different card games? Let me know. Search "Speed card game" on Google and you will find most of these hits list identical games that also use the same rules as Spit.

Second: I am recommending that we look at other articles written for Nertz outside of Wikipedia and also observe articles in related categories that have cleaner article structures. Someone has already suggested this as well.

If we look at the Solitaire article in Wikipedia you will notice that this article only has a few tidy sections. Now I am aware that this article is a card game category and does not need to list a large portion of rules and terminology. However, maybe condensing this Nertz article should be discussed. So feel free to suggest some portions of this article that readers could do without when they first arrive here.

Third: We may need to create a few more related articles from this one in order to clean this one up. For example, Solitaire not only has many variations with their own articles on Wikipedia but it also has it's own Glossary for an article (which has a very well designed article structure). Here it is: Glossary of solitaire It's terms are easily understandable.

So maybe adding a "Glossary of Nertz" article, an article for the National Nertz Association, an article for blatant Nertz variations may help. It is up to you guys so again let me know.

About Rule Disputes for a Standard Version of Nertz: Nobody plays exactly the same...the way Nertz was introduced into the world just made it impossible for only one version to survive over time. So, we can argue about minor rules all day. However, wouldn't it be nice if players can go somewhere and find basic standard rules? They may not agree with them all, but it may help them if they want to play with some other Nertz players in the future. I suggest that we try to take a general consensus on major rules for now and worry about minor ones after that.

To start, for example, I have learned that different players deal different amounts of cards to set up their Nertz piles. My opinion of the general consensus would be that the majority of players deal thirteen cards to set up their Nertz pile. My sources are from the majority of the rule links listed at Playnertz.com and the rules in a few Nertz style computer games that were obvious variants of Nertz like Nerts High Speed Card Game, eNerts, Nertz Solitaire, Solitaire Showdown. So let me know what you guys think about how to go about rule discussion as well.

Media/Content: I also suggest that pictures and diagrams may help this become a more engaging article. I can imagine that a person who has never heard of Nertz arriving at this article and quickly dismissing it after glancing at the endless paragraphs. I do also suggest bullet pointing certain areas as well.

Future Editing and Additions: Before you edit or after you edit, it would be nice to let us know what you did and your reasons for doing so if it is not grammar related. Grammar editing is desperately needed as well...so even if you do not have much Nertz knowledge you can still help with the grammar, spelling, and article structure.

I think the alternate names list is getting a little out of hand. It is amazing how many people know how categorize their own particular card game names with Nertz. You know what I mean? I do want people to be able to look up the name that they learned Nertz by and realize that it is Nertz that they play but at what point do we need to say "no" to name additions. I think it makes the article less credible. I do want a place for those names to go but the more we add the worse the article looks. In my opinion "Pounce", "Racing Demon", "Hell" (which I don't see), "Peanuts", and "Squinch" are the most common of alternate names. Solitaire Frenzy is a commercial game, which should be listed below maybe in a new section.

My last suggestion is to add any further variations to this discussion page, at the forum at playnertz.com, or just make an external link to them if you post them elsewhere.

Finally: Information sites across the web use wiki articles and access this article when "Nertz" is searched on their site. I have seen them and as much work as this article needs, they somehow look worse on their sites. Not to discredit all the contributions thus far because all of the input helps and is of value, but we can do better. As readers, editors, and Nertz experts, let's make a completely enjoyable, informative, and concise article so that interested readers and Nertz players can have a solid foundation for the game of Nertz. If you can help out respond to this discussion. Thanks guys. Nertzfan (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I took care of every punctuation issue I could find. That included fancy quotes, hyphens used as dashes, and apostrophes in decades. But why oh why was every open parentheses in this article missing its leading space? When did that become acceptable? It's bad enough constantly seeing it elsewhere on the Internet; I expect better of Wikipedia. Rant aside, unless I overlooked something, there are no longer any punctuation issues so that at least takes care of that part of the cleanup. --Kitsunegami (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Posting clean ups and fixes!

"This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (February 2010)"

- The attention that editors are giving this article is not fair. Almost every other card game article in Wikipedia has rules and instructions in it. This is so that people can properly identify the game.

As for citing sources: It is pretty ridiculous that every article has to have a certain number of sources. Just because something does not have a link on the internet it does not mean that it doesn't exist. The people contributing to this article are the "Sources". That is what Wikipedia is all about. Since when did it become a copy and paste article composed of everyone else's works.

It would be appreciated if editors did not diminish this article by posting the "clean ups" and "fixes" at the top of the page without a legitimate reason. This makes the readers of this article doubt the credibility of it when it is already moderated by those that understand the topic.

I will be taking down these fix boxes at the top of this article, and will do my best to comply with what they were intended for. However, if you feel that you need to put one back up then go look at other card game articles and do it to every one of those as well. I can't stand to see articles that are clean and concise get ruined by the stupid Fix boxes at the top. If you want them fixed than do it yourself and quit ruining articles.

I also will be adding links to the nertz and nerts definition pages which do not reference "Nertz"(with a capital "N") the card game what so ever.

If you have any problems questions or comments do so in a reply to this post and not so in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nertzfan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles are not required to have a "certain number" of sources, but WP:V, and WP:NOR pretty clearly outline Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing. In short, this article should not contain factual statements (including how to play the game) without citations indicationg where the information is coming from. Otherwise a reader cannot verify its accuracy.

With regards to "other articles"... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...all this argument establishes is that those other articles may also have problems; it doesn't speak to the quality or policy-compliance of this article.

As far as taking down the tags, it is improper to take down tags until the problems have been resolved. Please fix the problems first, then remove the tags. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, As stated before I will be attempting to fix this article before taking down the tags. But if you are the one responsible for putting them up, then it would be nice if you contributed with some solutions to the fixes since you obviously have the knowledge to do so. If you have thoughts for specific solutions, let us know here. The only credible citations relevant to the article aside from playnertz.com and pagat are banned blog sites(and it appears to be rather difficult to get them unbanned). So is it proper to have an entire article cited with just two links? Help would be appreciated. All I am implying is one should attempt to edit the article before putting up tags and not to leave the article in MORE of a mess than you found it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nertzfan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just got through with some major edits. I tried to include more inline citations but they keep blocking the sites as they think it is spam. ehow and other informative sites keep getting blocked so I had to remove them before I could save the rest of the edits to the article. I will continue to try to find more. The current information is factual but it seems hard to prove as my research of nertz is done by direct contacts with related people rather than copying what others have posted online. Please look over the page and give your suggestions here before labeling it a pile of junk. I could really use the help. Thanks. Also, I have yet to do redirects and category fixes for Nertz...does anybody have any thoughts on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nertzfan (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial Setup

I can't find any information on the initial setup of cards anywhere on the page except for the thirteen cards in the Nertz pile. Is the river initially empty? Is there one card in each column as the diagram in the infobox suggests? Or is it more like (Windows) solitaire (1, 2, 3 and 4 cards in the respective columns)? 87.189.162.81 (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Authority of the National Nertz Association?

As far as I can see, the National Nertz Association is just a website claiming to be America's national authority and publishing a set of rules which they claim as official. But I can find nothing about it's organisation e.g. is it registered? Who is on the board? Where is its headquarters? Who recognises it? Odd, too, that the website has a Turkish domain name. The number of people on its Facebook site and in its survey is tiny for a supposedly national organisation. I'm not decrying what they're trying to do, but the impression in this article was that it was some major international authority, for which I'm afraid there is no evidence. I've tweaked the article, but it may need more work. Bermicourt (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender Neutrality

I made this change months ago, and I made it again as it was reverted. “Their” is the preferred gender-neutral pronoun. “His or her” only applies to two genders, whereas “their” applies to any gender. “Their” is already used on the page several times (and in many other similar articles). Changing one instance of “their” back to “his or her” inside of one section is petty. Louie Mantia (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I would continue by saying the official stance for Wikipedia is no preference, not a preference or bias toward “his or her.” So reverting the change from “their” feels like @Bermicourt may have a preference for it. Singular “they” is unbiased, and more inclusive of being read as anyone. “His or her” is biased toward people who are one of these two genders only. Favoring “his or her” doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s stance as much as it reveals one’s own bias in the article. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Louie Mantia (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GNL opens by saying "use gender-neutral language... where this can be done with clarity and precision." and WP:GNL gives different ways of doing this. Under "Pronouns" it includes the use of "he or she" and says "there is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular 'they'". So "they" and "their" are not preferred by Wikipedia.

Importantly for game rules it has a section on "precision and clarity" which emphasises that "Gender-neutral language should not interfere with the readers' ability to understand the material." In describing games, clarity is vital which is why almost all card game book authors use "he", "she", "him" and "her" and avoid the use of 'they' and 'their'. This is because e.g. "they" could mean a single player or several players. It's vague and unclear.

As a card game researcher, I wish that the English language had singular gender-neutral words, but it doesn't. Most authors only use one gender and explain at the outset that it covers both genders. We're not doing this here, we're using both genders which is fine as long as it doesn't become "ungainly" as WP:GNL says. Bermicourt (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In this sentence, it is not unclear whether it means a singular person or plural people. If that’s the basis for your argument, use “the player.”

But insisting on “his or her” reveals your bias.

Use “player” if you want to be less confusing. Don’t use gendered language. Louie Mantia (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence already states “the first player to shed all ___ cards.” It already is a singular sentence. It can not be read to be plural in this instance. Louie Mantia (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I think “his or her” actually makes it less clear.

“The first player to shed all his or her pounce pile wins”

This makes it unclear whether it’s the [referenced] player’s pile, or someone else’s. “Or” is doing a lot of work to make it confusing.

“The first player to shed all their pounce pile wins”

In this instance, “their” is a direct reference to the player mentioned just four words before in the same sentence. No other player is mentioned, so it is abundantly clear that this is a singular “their” referencing the same singular “player” earlier.

You said “I wish the English language had singular gender-neutral words, but it doesn’t.” It does. “They” has been around in singular use for literally hundreds of years.

Also, you mentioned “both genders” which shows bias for the belief that there are only two genders. I find this is not inclusive to everyone on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just for two genders. Louie Mantia (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors page, I'd like to point out the sentence:

> When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?"

It seems the contributor who clearly has his own bias for the pronoun "they/them" instead of the alternative has immediately resorted to the assumption of personal bias/prejudice against a personal view that they hold, and is haphazardly arguing the same to his fellow contributor.

Objectivity seems to be rather lost in this debate, substituted for the championing of personal opinions. AlBashir (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence (The first player to shed all his or her pounce pile wins by shouting "Pounce!") could use a rewrite anyway, as it seems unlikely that in a situation where a second player was a little slower to shed their cards but was faster at shouting (perhaps the first player forgot they had to shout), the table would somehow know and agree on which player had actually shed first, and happily wait for that player to shout. I'm unable to check the offline source for those rules, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: good point; let's check the source.

@Louiemantia: please don't resort to personal attacks such as accusing other editors of being biased; it doesn't help your argument and may lead to a sanction. It's not even true. I have spent hours going through game articles on Wikipedia, recasting the text to avoid the use of "he" and "him" whilst trying to retain clarity. It is not easy and I know I haven't always got it right, resulting sometimes in awkward constructions or potential confusion of a different kind. So it is quite frustrating when other editors come along and change the text based on their gender WP:POV when a) Wikipedia doesn't require it and b) without ensuring the result is crystal clear from the perspective of enabling readers to be able to play the game. Bermicourt (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not attacking you by stating that your bias is showing in the article. I’m using the word “bias” to reflect that your opinion is being revealed in the article itself.

Your assertion that Wikipedia doesn’t require “they” is also true for “he or she.” I wish you’d acknowledge this. There’s no preference either way. Not a preference for your point-of-view. I’m not accusing you of being biased any more than you are, referencing WP:POV.

As I stated earlier, it is crystal clear that “their” references the singular “player” already mentioned in the same sentence. Louie Mantia (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct and I do acknowledge it which is why I've removed the singular gender words from numerous articles, precisely to avoid this kind of debate. The key is clarity and, while I've left a few instances of "they" and "their" in place where they're used in the traditional way and are clear, in general we want to avoid these words in describing game rules as I know from having my published articles on games peer-reviewed. BTW your latest change is an example of the kind of neutral phrasing that I've been introducing anyway. The acid test is whether readers who don't know the game will play it correctly, and as per the cited sources, by following the article. Bermicourt (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe edits should always make pages better. I think I’d have preferred if this interaction went like this:

• me: his or her → their

• you: [the change I just made]

If you are already making these kinds of changes, instead of reverting back to non-neutral language, rewrite it. It could’ve saved us all the time.

I’m glad this was resolved. Louie Mantia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's good that this is resolved, subject to Lord Belbury checking the accuracy against the source. As a parting comment, you may not realise that the way you've just put things sounds a little patronising, as if you're talking to an office junior. We usually get more cooperation if we avoid telling other editors off and focus on the issue instead. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, my dude. Louie Mantia (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't check the source, I didn't create the section and don't own that book. But the current Whoever sheds their pounce pile and shouts “Pounce!” first, wins. seems plausible enough to me. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found and linked the source and tweaked the section slightly as a result. From the source it's clear that going out first is the deciding factor and shouting "Pounce" merely announces the fact. So that clears that one up.

In passing, it appears that "Nerts" was originally an American euphemism for "Nuts"; I don't know if it still is and whether that's worth mentioning if a definite source can be found. Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)