Jump to content

Talk:Rock paper scissors/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rock–paper–scissors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Rock beats Scissors

Contrary to what is stated in the article, Rock blunts Scissors; i.e. it does not "crush" them. The article should be updated? FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's almost universally "crushes". See, for example, [1]. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, well, I started a Section here and when no one responded I made the change. So ... I'm sorry about that; I didn't realise it would be an issue, particularly in light of the fact that there is no reference provided, and I tried to go about it the right way. Perhaps I should have waited longer? At any rate ... thank you for referring to my change as good faith; which it was. I'm here to help the encyclopaedia in any small way that I can; not to get into fights and start wars.
But I digress!
The way it was explained to me as a child - and I am 50, so this was a while ago - was that Paper covers Rock, which prevents Rock from BLUNTING Scissors, which prevents Scissors from cutting Paper, which prevents Paper from covering Rock etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. The problem with Rock crushes Scissors is that covering the Rock with Paper does not prevent it from crushing the Scissors, but it does prevent it from blunting them. See? Now then ... it may well be true that most people nowadays say Rock crushes Scissors. However most people use the word 'decimate' incorrectly to mean destroy - when it actually means reduce by 10% - and most people use the word 'plethora' to mean a lot; when it actually means too many. It's a real shame too because it has got to the point where those 2 words have actually taken on the newer, incorrect meanings, to the point where they can't really be used correctly any more. People may well say that is no big deal but to me it is a shame because there are many words which mean destroy, and may words which mean "a lot", so all that has happened is 2 words which once could be used to say something very specific - albeit only on the very rare occasions that they were called for - are no longer available.
Blah blah blah ... I'm rambling sorry!
My question is, what happens on Wikipedia in cases like this where the majority are wrong? Well ... sorry ... I shouldn't say that because that's an assumption on my part and I may well be wrong. You get my point though? Even if the majority are right, there are a good number of us who say Rock BLUNTS Scissors, and we have a good reason for saying it, so shouldn't that at least be included in the article? What happens in situations like this? Best Regards FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong. You opened a discussion first, and made your edit only after that. You would have been okay even if you hadn't opened the discussion first (WP:BOLD); you get extra points for that. Some of us tend to watch the article pages more closely than the talk pages, though so I noticed the edit to the article; but seeing as you were good enough to start the discussion, it was really incumbent on me to respond here instead of tersely reverting.
I see there are some legitimate use of "rock blunts scissors," even if it's not the majority, so it wouldn't be amiss to mention it. How about this edit? Its a little clumsy, based on existing text, which could probably be rewritten to make this cleaner, but a start, anyway.
Incidentally, I think much of the lede should be moved to "Game play" per WP:LEDE. which currently does not discuss much of the game play at all. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Video Games

Not only does it somehow not reference Pokemon handheld games but the game/weapons it mentions is actually a horrible example of 3 way balancing.

Halo actually has a huge issue with the balancing of pistol in that until maybe halo 4/5 it was either completely useless or overpowered, you could say the weapons are well balanced so generally a close range weapon in CQC wins over a long range and the reverse but it isn't a magic formula like "Oh shotgun beats sniper, pistol beats shotgun". In reality if you are talking Halo 1 then Pistol beats EVERYTHING! As well the game itself is a skill based twitch game, i.e. no matter the game rules if one player is good enough rock beats paper

Pokemon is on the other hand is a great example as it is just a hyper complex rock/paper/scissors system with the starter pokemon in the games being used to show the concept at most basic levels; Grass beats Water, Water Beats Fire, Fire beats Grass.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.27.113 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of players

I tried searching through this long article to see if any mention of variations on the number of players was present. I could not find any reference to such variations. How-ever, in ROK and Kazakhstan, the game is commonly played to decide things when there are more than two parties involved. I don't have a standard reference for this, but an example is at https://freshkorean.com/tag/rock-paper-scissors-in-korean/, which is a video of a Korean t.v. program.Kdammers (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I always thought it was more commonly used in cases with multiple players, often uneven number, where flipping a coin would be impractical. Sometimes up to 10 people would participite.--Reciprocist (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Chinese or Japanese

Hello, Is this a Chinese or Japanese game? Thanks, ئارام بکر (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Kuma ken

The page Kuma ken is a stub on a hand game similar to RPS. The page Kuma Ken on the other hand redirects here(where I find no mentioning of that game). I don't know if it is best to redirect both Kuma kens here(maybe after a merger?), or if one should be redirected to the other, but I definitely think you should end up at the same page no matter how you capitalize the name.(Especially since I suppose it comes from Japan, meaning bear fist, and where it would be written using japanese characters that don't distinguish between upper case and lower case.) FreeToDisagree (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

En dashes?!

Considering this discussion, why was this article moved/renamed to one that uses en dashes instead of hyphens? You can't even type an en dash on a standard keyboard and they're not generally used to hyphenate words. nagualdesign 02:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. I'm going to see if I can fix it. I see a precedent at https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.051909 and the html title of the page uses hyphens. Nateguimondart (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Because of the multiple talk subpages, It would require someone with the Page Mover bit to do it correctly. I've added a proposed move, below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Archives

I also suggest that /Archive 1 be merged into /Archive 2017. The two sections are both in 2017, and Archive 1 is not in the index at the top of the page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Rock paper scissors. bd2412 T 00:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rock–paper–scissors → Rock-paper-scissors – Apparently, the dash is not used by most references outside of Wikipedia. Even though the dash may be grammatically correct, it is rarely used. As far as I can tell, the move was never discussed on these talk pages, and moved in 2016 without discussion, followed by some edit warring in 2017. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of outcomes

According to the current text, the number of outcomes (to one round of a two-party game) is only two: "... it has only two possible outcomes: a draw, or a win for one player and a loss for the other." I don't think this is correctly worded since there are three possible outcomes: A=B, A>B, B>A. Kdammers (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is logically firm; I will attempt to help with an explanation here. The “two possible outcomes” statement obscures the identities of each participant so that no distinction can be made other than the relationship, and that “a victory” is logically symmetrical with “a defeat”: you do not know the participant who wins, so you cannot tell them apart. Try it: “a draw, a win for one player and a loss for the other, or a loss for one player and a win for the other.” — JamesEG (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Schere, Stein, Papier" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Schere, Stein, Papier and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Schere, Stein, Papier until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Reference 40 leads to a missing page

The link in reference 40 leads to a missing page and The Seattle Times, the news website that it leads to, doesn't seem to have an article about an exasperated judge resorting to a child's game. If someone finds the page the link should be changed. Otherwise, it should be removed. IndigoGollum (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalize name of the game

I did some editing to the article, but I don't see how to edit the title of the article. I believe all three words of Rock Paper Scissors should be capitalized. It's debatable whether there should also be a comma or dash between the words, but at minimum they should be capitalized, since it is the name of the game. Source: I have been a freelance copy editor much of my adult life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balljuggler9 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As a rule, names of games are not capitalized - chess, tic-tac-toe etc. Hence, it would be Rock paper scissor in title, and rock paper scissors in running text - or perhaps hyphenated, if sources support that. There may be exceptions, however; e.g., Go is often capitalized. My inclination would be to revert your changes, but I'll refrain for now.--Nø (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_paper_scissors/Archive_2&oldid=1248239821"