Talk:Petals Around the Rose

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

DEFECTIVE puzzle description

The description of this puzzle is defective in that it posits that the only values with a dot in the center of the die are three and five, which COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that the one also has this single dot in the center! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.149.99 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petals and Roots

There is no point in even mentioning Petals and Roots without either a solution, or a link to a play of the game, or a link to a computerized version of the game, so why is it here? It should either be removed, or made useful. 130.49.25.218 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point already... see point 6.

Anyway, I'd still like to know how it's played. ZtObOr 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petals Around the Rose as a teaching aid

The prime reason for NOT showing the solution is that many teachers are using Petals Around the Rose in their class rooms as a lesson in lateral thinking. Having the solution easily available online, especially in Wikipedia, has the potential to significantly reduce the value of the lesson. --lloyd_borrett 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a teacher (English, though) and this is laughable. Generate a handout or step the students through the problem. Wikipedia's copyright policy allows for taking the text you want and, with citation, putting it in your own material. But it's pathetic that a teacher is relying on Wikipedia as a primary teaching text. --EEMeltonIV 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the teachers are relying on Wikipedia. It's that their students can use Wikipedia to obtain the solution, thus defeating the object of the exercise. --Lloyd borrett 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Removing the material doesn't address the underlying problem of lazy students looking online for a quick answer rather than working through the material. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding what is and is not a compelling reason to include or to remove material from this site -- you'll find that "the kids cheat" is not a sufficient reason to excise content. --EEMeltonIV 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no reason to censor Wikipedia because it ruins a teacher's lesson plans. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia article on DeCSS, including links to the code, even though some people might prefer that DeCSS was surpressed. Wikipedia also has proofs of many mathematical theorems that might be assigned as homework in math classes. Wikipedia also has an article on arithmetic serieses, even though it is a known fact that some teachers have assigned this problem, expecting that they would perform the summation using the O(n) brute force method rather than the O(1) closed form formula, and who believe that the class of people who know this formula should be a restricted group like the Illuminati. 75.0.254.13 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if a teacher wants to use this as a lesson plan, they can simply change the name of it (to something like romans around the pillar... or something else - and it would be impossible to look up the answer through this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.56.81 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - We should be actively supressing information on Wikipedia now, in case people use it to look things up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.202.91.11 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that this case is unique, not like any of the other examples cited. The object of the game is to figure out the rules. And part of the rule is not to reveal the rule to other players. So, stating the rule is, in fact, a negation of the game. A complete documentation of the game is possible, within Wikipedia's guidelines, without revealing the rule. By doing so, we're just making Wikipedia fulfill the role of a really obnoxious killjoy. rowley (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Resolution Suggestions

Firstly we need to remember whether we are informing and to balance up certain attributes.Wikipedia is a collaboration of information and this is to inform - Please be neutral and do not involve personal opinions. Think:

Is the information in the public domain? - If yes then it is public information and should be put there - remember Wikipedia is neutral - please follow this unique format of neutrality and do not be bias by leaving out or removing information.

Is negotiation possible? - Is negotiation an option while still keeping withing Wikipedia policy? If so, Do something like making a child page with the solution on so people have an option to see the solution to the puzzle or not etc....

Is the information relevant?

I feel the problem is the dispute of releasing certain information that is in the public domain to the public - Wikipedia is about informing people, this needs to be kept to. Remember Wikipedia:Five pillars!

If you wish to make a short statement about this case please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-30_Petals_Around_the_Rose

Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to happen is a confirmation of consensus which states that the solution should not be edited without first; a prior discussion and conclusive decision within the community.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the solution

Wikipedia should not intentionally obscure the solution. We have numerous articles on magic tricks explained in much greater depth. This is not the kind of article people stumble upon at random; if they're looking it up, they've almost certainly played the game. One naturally expects all information about it, solution inclusive, to appear on Wikipedia. To hide it out some perverse desire for secrecy is against the aim of this website.

Incidentally, I found the solution in the page history by clicking the very first revision.

--Dave Indech 01:53, Jun 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I would like to take down the spoiler section, as one of the main purposes of the game is to allow people to find the answer for themselves. I also don't know if my edit would be good enough to remove the cleanup tag from the article. CountMippipopolous

I certainly wouldn't mind if you did. It's bad when someone goes "Yeah, I heard about that, that's a stupid puzzle." --Addama 13:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with removing the spoiler section is that Wikipedia is not designed to preserve the "purpose" of a game. As such, an argument based on that pretext is inherently faulty. Indeed, a brief glance at other puzzle entries shows that solutions are often included. This entry by far has a much more secure spoiler section (most others have it contained in the text), thus further restrictions to information would seem to violate a NPOV. Thought 2 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

I do think that the best plan is to take the spoiler section down, because it ruins the whole purpose of the game. Maybe instead the spoiler section could contain hints to help troubled people who cannot figure out the puzzle. This seems a bit more reasonable then giving the answer away completely, so then people will not kick themselves for ruining the game for thereselves. I know I did by finding the answer here instead of figuring it out all on my own.

I don't know if the solution should be taken down altogether, but it should at the very least be made hard to access. I felt richly rewarded for figuring out the solution on my own, and I might have been robbed of that feeling if the solution was included on the main entry page, in plain view. Besides, given the background and tradition of the puzzle, to show the solution on Wikipedia would be like warez'ing Petals Around the Rose, if you get my meaning. Ixat, 17/10/2005

I am afraid that you present a false analogy fallacy, since the solution to a puzzle is hardly protected information. Now you might have an argument if the code for creating a computerized version of Petals Around the Rose was posted. As it is, the solution to a puzzle is no more copyrighted than any other information about a game that is not contained within the game in some form. To call offering the solution here an instance of "warez'ing" is akin to labeling the entire website www.gamefaqs.com an illegal endeavor. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot be concerned with the emotional state of its readers. If information is valid, then we must leave it up to the reader to determine if he or she will read it. Their life is on their own heads, as it were. By removing, or indeed even restricting, access to the solution then one is removing or obstructing a person's free will.

Thought 19:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see your point... I should have explained myself more clearly. Of course, I didn't mean "warez'ing" in terms of legal copyright infringement, but rather in moral terms, of cheapening, if you will, the tradition of the puzzle and disrespecting the intentions of the people who founded it. I understand the point about free access to information; however, it doesn't necessarily trump any considerations of discretion and respect. Case in point: the British Museum agreed to stop the exhibition of Ethiopian "tabots", holy artifacts that are, in the Coptic Christian tradition, forbidden to be looked at by commoners. Maybe removing the solution altogether is too drastic, but it should at least remain unmerged with the main Petals article. Ixat

I think there comes a time, even in a community where the main aim is to propegate knowledge, certain secrets such as these must be protected. It may be somewhat elementary, but there's something romantic and fun about keeping it a secret and finding it out on your own. Although the answer to the puzzle exists on MANY other websites, having it on wikipedia simply adds fuel to that fire, and it's probably the first choice for a large number of folks who are desperate for the answer to the puzzle. Can wikipedia not relax on its quest for eternal information just this once? I'm not calling for people to do the right thing, here, but rather that which keeps one of the secrets that most needs keeping. --Daverd2 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. It may seem unromantic or even disheartening to some, but Wikipedia's function is frankness, not mystery. We can't make exceptions, because everyone wants them. I think Thought has hit the nail on the head at least as far as Wikipedia's perspective is concerned. -Abe Dashiell 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a balance between giving access to knowledge (Wikipedia's mission) and protecting the "confidentiality" of some mysteries / puzzles. The "Spoiler" banner is, I think, a little too weak a protection. I took the liberty to cypher / hide the solution, while giving all the tool for the person who really wants to know the solution to get it. It should prevent the casual reader to learn the solution "by mistake", while allowing the person really seeking for the answer to get it with minimal effort. Not perfect, but maybe a nice compromise. Stan (16-Mar-06)
  - I disagree. Weak protection is sufficient. If you look up a puzzle in an encyclopedia, you shouldn't have to jump thru hoops to find out the answer. I reverted your change. I won't revert it again, though, unless a stronger consensus is reached. NickelShoe 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So can you back up your change? Do you think it presents a neutral point of view? I think we're giving special treatment to this particular puzzle. Many things are rewarding to figure out on your own--from puzzles, to math problems, to historical connections. But which things do we choose to garble? NickelShoe 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I must agree with NickelShoe on this one, it is nonsensical to encrypt the solution. It goes against Wikipolicy by making information MORE difficult to obtain (Wiki meaning quick). Additionally, if the Spoiler tag isn't enough protection, then a person's freewill is enough. Reverting it to something legible. Thought 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I have changed the solution so it is on a subpage of this article. It will not be immediately visible, but it can easily be accessed if someone really wants to spoil it. I think this is a nice comperamise to what the concerns have been.P-unit 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The solution used to be at another page. Did you read the discussion linked to at the top of the page? Look, a spoiler warning is plenty. If we go this way, we might as well have subpages for articles about movies to keep from spoiling the plot. If someone looks the game up, they shouldn't be surprised that the solution is there, and it's clearly marked, so it's their own fault if they didn't want to know. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that a spoiler warning is plenty. I don't think anyone will actually stumble "by mistake" across the solution. Even if they miss both the warning and the section title, the paragraph starts "The most common solution to the puzzle Petals Around the Rose is...". If they are still reading, they probably want (or don't mind receiving) the solution. Lookingforgroup 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to disagree here. I googled "Petals around the rose" for the java/html game, and in the search results was Wikipedia's solution. Encoding it would be ideal, because having it in plain text in the google search results completely ruined the challenge.Finn 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One of the main points of the game is so you HAVE to figure it out on your own, there is no reason to have a solution seeing as if you figure out the solution you dont need to refresh your memory, and if you dont know the solution, you have no buisness knowing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopherlord (talk • contribs)
        Sounds like a compelling argument for Wikigamepedia or some such -- but that is not in line with the policies or spirit of Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to wax philosophical here: Wikipedia is not about selective censorship to fit your desires. That is the policy. If you deliberately and repeatedly remove this information, you are comitting vandalism. Get over it

Verifiability and notability are core beliefs of wikipedia, censorship and elitism are not TheBilly 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that leaving it on another page should satisfy both sides. I ruined for myself several puzzles by accidentaly reading the solution. The purpose of wikipedia is not to do this. (I hope)SuperElephant 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia cares either way about ruining a puzzle. I don't object to it being on a separate page, but won't be upset if it's restored back into a single article. I'm sure there's some WP guideline out there about sub-pages... --EEMeltonIV 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBPAGES#Disallowed_uses #3 discourages this well-intentioned use. --EEMeltonIV 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, what you created was not a subpage, but rather a page in which the the / was part of the title. Subpages are turned off in article namespace. --EEMeltonIV 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that wikipedia should show a solution to the puzzle simply because that before now everytime I've have seen the puzzle mentioned it has included the 'rule' that Potentates of the Rose (those that understand the game) are not allowed to share it's solution. The idea of a puzzle is to work it out not find the answer on wikipedia. It's not censorship or elitest to not give the answer in the same way it is not censorship or elitest to not put quantum mechanics in a primary school text book. Xandert 86 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even now the description includes the "rule" regarding the Potentates of the Rose. But wikipedia isn't about preserving the "idea of a puzzle," it is about presenting information. If people are looking to wikipedia for the answer, then presumably they do not want to work the answer out on their own. If people do want to work the answer out on their own, they are quite free not to look at wikipedia. The choice is up to the reader if they want the answer or not, why should we be making that choice for them? Thought (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the argument that Wikipedia is not a "potenate of the Rose". Wikipedia is an information source, not a person. ZtObOr 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution section should be locked, to prevent people from removing it. ZtObOr 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting, but probably not necessary. Over the last several years it seems that the solution has remained more often than not. The vandalism doesn't happen often enough to prevent editing if it is necessary. Thought (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it does become necessary, how do I request it? ZtObOr 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP --EEMIV (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happened twice in 6 days. Is that often enough? (I'm reading the instructions right now.) ZtObOr 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you know what, I think we also have a problem if 80% of the edits are new users removing the solution and autoconfirmed users putting them back on, even if there's about 2 weeks between them. I'm putting a request into RPP.

The solution and verifiability

Up until now, the debate has focused on whether or not to conceal the results to preserve the "purity" of the game/enforce the rule against revealing the answer. Let's step back, however, and look at this from a guidelines standpoint: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." What source, which has published the rules of the game, are we using as our source for the rules of the game? A source does several things: it eliminates the perception that Wikipedia is spoiling the puzzle, since the answer was already out there; it brings the article into better compliance with the requirement to cite sources; and it makes sure the article hasn't strayed into original research. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could make one, if you wanted. I would be able to discuss all the rules of the game and such on my website. ZtObOr 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pish posh, we no more need to cite the source for the answer to Petals Around the Rose than we need to cite the source for the answer to 2+2. They are self-verifiable. Thought (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do. It is not a natural law of the universe that the answer is "the sum of the dots not including center dots". I can think of several software implementations I have encountered over the years which could be cited, I think we even link to one in External Links. 216.75.170.81 (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is self-evident. You are, of course, welcome to provide a citation, but one is not needed. Allow me to refer you to how other pages have done this: As I Was Going to St Ives and Riddle. The answers, being self-evident after having been revealed, are not cited and need not be cited. Thought (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. --EEMIV (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, right now, everyone's been talking about making a reference, but no one's actually making one. I'd like to make one myself, but that would be manoeuvring to fit the verifiability standard, and my source wouldn't even be credible. I'll create one anyway, and if you don't like it, then delete it. But you can't say I didn't try. ZtObOr 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A solution to this problem might be to create a separate article titled Petals Around the Rose(solution) and link to it. This would prevent the casual surfer from being shown the answer if he did not intend to see it, but would not conceal the information. This would, I feel, be considerate to Johnny Stumbleduck. 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.213.229 (talk)

Sorry, but that's already been done before, and we said that it shouldn't be there.

By the way, about verifiability, the only "verification" you need are the sites that have the problem. They all follow the same rule. ZtObOr 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, why destroy the illusion? Even if the person who looks it up is already aware of the answer, and I'm not saying they are as it could always be somebody too impatient to work out the answer themselves, then why post the answer if they already know it? It doesn't make any sense! 62sameera (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It was suggested over at the solution article that the two aught to be rejoined. As such I added the tags to both pages, so that everyone might be aware of the discussion. Please keep in mind that, as a Wikipedia article, both should conform to Wikipedia standards and stated policies before all other considerations. Thought 16:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the rules state that the answer is always even why put the added rule of subtracting the number of odd dice rolls? If you had all fives it would end up being 15, an odd number. Salmar 16:25, 02 December 2006

Check your math: 5 dice all showing 5s sum to 25; subtract number of odd-faced dice (5) = 20. Correct (even) answer. --EEMeltonIV 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section

A history section would be nice. According to this article http://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-bg.htm it's been around at least since 1977. --Apoc2400 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petals and Roots?

There isn't any information about how Petals and Roots works, although it is a variation. It doesn't show any difference between the two. How does it work? ZtObOr 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that one you not only count the pips around the central dot, you also count the pips underneath, giving odd rolls a score of 6 each, and evens rolls zero. 198.153.92.254 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

"The answer will be a positive even number including zero."

Is "positive ... including zero" this some weird way of saying "nonnegative"? Positive numbers do not include zero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I believe there should be a populated external links section. I see no reason to remove the section as it contributes to the article.

Before someone jumps out to say, "Conflict of Interest," I am not dedicated to listing my website on WikiPedia. I noticed there was an external link posted and decided to add my website as well because it builds on the idea of Petals Around the Rose. The original external link was NOT removed by myself when I added my link.

I believe the links would add to the article. They shouldn't be considered "spam". Do a google search on the way people find out about this puzzle. A significant number of referrals come from forums where one user "challenges" a community. These links are very useful.

24.72.28.80 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Links should comply with WP:EL. I removed petalsaroundtherose.net/ as it appears non conforming. Dloh cierekim 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the links to flash or HTML or JavaScipt or whatever versions of the game -- they're just spam and don't introduce or expand on the content of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to: http://petalsaroundtherose.net/ was removed by EEMIV for the reason, spam. The website contributes new information to the wiki page. Other users have said they use the game as a teaching aid. The above website allows teachers to go over probability and solving problems using tables. Take a brief look at the advanced version of the game. The viewers must use tables to find trends in the information. The advanced version was partially built for this reason.

The additional versions of the game were also made to extend the game. The initial game can be solved very quickly and easily.

To reinforce these ideas I would be willing to add more sections explaining the teaching aid concept.

Trenchant (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Explaining the teaching aid concept" without sources would be original research. If any of these sites have sections with lesson plans or present an educational bent, please plop them here so we can look at them -- explaining in the EL section that they are instructional might be appropriate. But links flagged only as "an online version of the game" or "an online version with, oh, neat, a few twists!" is, again, spammy. --EEMIV (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing about this that would benefit an encyclopedia article, especially after following the link. While I doubt the intent is spamacious, I do not see that the link complies with WP:EL. I also note the ongoing conflict between EEMIV and Trenchant. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bitten several times. Regardless, I understand your points. I will make the appropriate changes to the website.Trenchant (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution anyone against adding a link to a webs site to which they are connected. It may represent a conflict of interest. Please review WP:EL, as external links should not be added lightly. If a website contains information that supports content, it should be cited as a source. Otherwise, it probably should not be added. This looks purely like a gaming site. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe there should be at least one external link. I would consider a reliable source for a game different then a reliable source for information. A website with an online version of the game is a tool for visual learners. If the site accurately represents the game then I would consider it a reliable source. I have added my website because I intend to contribute to the knowledge of Petals Around the Rose. I will adjust the site accordingly and post back.Trenchant (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming uneasy at what I perceive as your need to insert this link. When I was new, I self linked too. I learned that this was not a good idea, and I removed the links. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is not to self link. My intent is to contribute to Petals Around the Rose. I'm not saying re add my link. I'm saying re add the link that was up there before. The same link that has been carelessly added and removed over and over. If you view the history you will see it's been going on for some time without discussion. People have been changing it based on their independent opinions.

I think there should be at least one external link to an online game. The previous link, http://weavervsworld.com/docs/think/rose/ seems fit to me. It is a direct version of that game that gives individuals a chance to try the game. I see no reason it shouldn't be added. I've played the game and can say that it is a valid version. I'm the closest thing to an "expert" on the topic that you will find. I see no reason why it wouldn't be a valid source. What are the other opinions on this specific topic? Agree/disagree that there should be one link? Trenchant (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why the weavervsworld link was removed. That had been in the article for a long time. It's also a straight online version of PatR. As a result, I think it adds directly to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no objection so I have gone ahead and added the weaversworld link again. Trenchant (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci numbers

It's interesting to note that 3 and 5 are both fibonacci numbers and are in fact (with the exception of 4 in very rare cases) the only possible arrangements of petals on a flower (that can be rolled on a die). [Please note that the singular of the plural "dice" is "die."][1]

Aurimas (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don' know if it was intentional, but I noticed the play on words "Put alls around zeroes" or "Put all surround zeroes" which might contribute to the solution. A friend noted the absence of 3's and 5's in the zero answers on a long list of answers from a internet POTR site that, upon further investigation yirlds the true nature of the game. As for the above comments, I think a link to the solution page, or sample rolls of 6 different 5 of a kind rolls would kick most people in the right direction. I also appreciated the colorful description of "the petals around the center dot". 122.102.164.199 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citation for solution

The point was raised once before, but was dismissed. However, it is an important point. There is no citation for the solution. As such, it should be removed. Suggesting that the solution can be worked out, and therefore doesn't need a citation, is practically the definition of Wikipedia:No original research. The solution requires a reliable, published source for it to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. The suggestions above that someone simply make an external website with the solution and then link to that would obviously not suffice. As such, I'm adding an unreferenced tag, and suggesting that the section be removed if no reliable source can be found. — Sam 66.31.201.89 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the solution section as required by WP:NOR, as described above. If there's a real source, it can be re-added. — Sam 66.31.201.89 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scam School

Scam School featured this in an episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ikk2toUAxA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.47.34 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #2 broken

When I tried following the linked footnotes, #2 goes to a dead page. I am not going to delete it - html and I aren’t friends… but it should be fixed - either the link needs to point elsewhere, or the entire note needs chopped. This one: “ Morris, Scot (May 1980). "Games". Omni. 2 (8): 144, 128. ^ Jump up to: a b”

Thx.

Jd.varner44 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]