Talk:Wordle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section for language adaptations -- Some need (reputable) sources

https://github.com/thiskurt/wordle-languages - this github repo has most of the language adaptations of the game. It was with it that I found sources about some of the languages in the article, like Dutch, French, Catalan and Galician. If you find a source about other languages such as Polish and Yiddish, feel free to drop a source about it! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tet: Thanks! I'll copyedit that soon (ref formatting etc), though one thing I'd like to note is that I'm unsure if Rest of World and INTERNET Watch are reliable. I also think there should be some inclusion criteria for that so it doesn't just become a laundry-list of languages, and one suggestion I have is to only include a language if there is coverage of that Wordle version in reliable sources of that language (so e.g the Dutch one cited to a Dutch source is fine.) Another possibility is to include ones where the articles write about that version's popularity (like how the Spanish and Portuguese ones have player counts) so that we can also write a bit of prose about it. What do you think? eviolite (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Can't comment on INTERNET Watch since that one I really just copied from the Google. But as far as I know, Rest of World seems reliable. Their "About Us" page and "Editorial standards" are what I would expect from an online source such as this one. I'm not sure if I get what you mean by "laundry-list of languages", but tbh I'm an inclusionist. I do agree that it should only be covered if there's sources, but I don't think using sources from the same language is good. Case in point: Rest of World mentioning the Tamil/Urdu languages. It actually may be the only source a westerner can find when it comes to "less known/spoken" languages. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tet: My main concern with including languages mentioned in broad articles like the Rest of World one is that anyone can make one of these clones and anyone can report on it without knowing if it's actually played or not. Unless we want to end up listing every major language in the world I think it is better to list only major Wordle adaptations, which would have to rely on actual data or native coverage that those specific language speakers are playing it. I do not really agree with the statement on non-European languages - Urdu and Tamil are absolutely not "less spoken" languages and will certainly have online sources if the language version is worth reporting on. However as I alluded to above I believe the best option is to just incorporate it in prose rather than a big comma list for the languages where that is possible (like what you've done with Portuguese.) I suppose for example that we can include the bit about Tamil using an abugida as its own sentence. eviolite (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Given this is the English language wiki, I don't think we want to list out the alternate versions, though we can provide an external link to a page of those. I did add a source that noted that there are foreign language versions of Wordle out there, which is sufficient for now. --Masem (t) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Tet had created a section/paragraph about the other language version which has since been merged with the previous info about the clones to form an 'Adaptations and clones' section (hence this thread) - are you suggesting that the addition should be reverted? eviolite (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In prose form (and with each sourced to an RS) that's fine, though I don't think that if a Wordle was created for 100+ languages each, we'd be able to support that. The point we're making on en.wiki is that the game was so popular as to have many other foreign-language versions made from it, and naming a few examples is reasonable. --Masem (t) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem So, I'm a bit conflicted myself. On one hand, I'd like for this article to be inclusive when it comes to language variants of Wordle when these versions are covered by reliable sources, even if it's a local newspaper. On the other hand, I share your concerns that it's possible that people create too much variants to make this article (or at least the section about variants) readable. I can't think of a solution to be honest. I guess we could make a separate article listing all the Wordle variants, language or changing the game mechanic? I'm not too sure about that idea, but it would prevent the problem of covering every language at least. I'm less concerned about game changing variants to be honest. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 01:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tet and Masem: At this point, I do think a standalone list article may be warranted. There are already over 20 languages listed in that sentence, several of which have more than one adaptation, and it is constantly changing. For WP:NLIST see TimeOut and Rest of World - though it's borderline, I think it could be notable enough (and there are at least mentions in several other sources). Also @安眠3: as the person who added many of the adaptations. eviolite (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this is en.wiki, and all that's key is that Wordle was in English, and that many different variants in other languages were made. It would be inappropriate for us to link to every single other language variant, but just to get an idea of range and scope of other languages that have been used. This is where an external link that includes links to the other language versions would serve that better. --Masem (t) 18:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the non-English versions of this game cannot really be called Wordle and will pretty soon overwhelm the real discussion of the game. Already, nearly half of the references are to non-English versions and most of these are not written in English. How can this even be evaluated in the usual Wikipedia process? There should be a separate article on these Wordle-ish games. Chess is a good model, where there is an article on the game and a short references to variations which have an article and a list article. Wordle is simple, a yet the article is getting more complicated than the game.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the other issue: we're still in the point where Wordle is a fad. The core game is past the point that its notability isn't in question (this page wont be deleted), but if within a month no one is talking about Wordle anymore, then it makes no sense to have any major coverage of the language variants beyond that they exist - to contrast to chess which is a centuries-old game. On the other hand, if months from now we're still talking Wordle, then there's probably a good reason to consider a variant page. But right now its too soon to make that determination. --Masem (t) 00:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Then would the best course of action be to just remove it then? I can understand the arguments for that, and I am not sure if the current state of the list would fly with MOS:EMBED, but I don't want the work, mostly by 安眠3, updating it to go to waste. eviolite (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the list of languages here makes the same sense as the list of languages on the pages of Google Translate and Voice of America.-安眠3 (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think today's announcement by NYT may be an indicator that W. is more than a fad. The "variants" section as it is today is fairly worthless as it's just a sentence listing languages with a citation that may or may not be in English, or even accessible. I think it needs its own article where the variant is listed along with a few words about how it is the same or different. For example, the Tamil version can take a seemly unlimited number of steps whereas the Russian version seems to very close to the English, but I'm unsure if the entire Cyrillic alphabet is being used. And I sense we're only a few days away from Wordle in Klingon or Elfin. If I get some time over the next week, I'll put together a straw man. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that I already see people bemoaning that because it will likely lose its free-to-play nature that the game will lose popularity too - I don't know which way it will go. But the key is that the English language version of Wordle is the topic, and that there are numerous language versions is a key fact, but those versions haven't gotten the same level of coverage as the English-language version. --Masem (t) 01:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. But the NYT does provide the Mini Crossword for free. One possibility is that it will continue to be free in its current incarnation, but they may add something like collecting statistics on the scores of all users for the day. That's what they do for the Weekly News Quiz. One thing is for sure: if it goes behind the paywall, it's dead. On the video game issue, if you feel strongly that W. is a video game, OK. But, my reading of Video game, is that it is more appropriately a Text-based game. But then again, I haven't played a video game since Pong. Your call. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Text-based games are video games too (Colossal Cave Adventure and Zork are video games, just that they use a primary text interface). It's fine that Wordle is called as a word game but it is interactive with input and a computer giving output, and is a game, so it fits the core definition of a video game too, just that it doesn't make sense to talk about it in the same way that you'd normally talk about a video game. But in this case, when it got cloned, that clearly matched the same problems that other video game clone situations were met with too. --Masem (t) 03:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: Dr. G called it [1] --Masem (t) 15:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

To come back, I think we can use this source: from Global Voices to identify that Wordle has been translated into multiple languages, and then use this exhaustive list as a Ext. link to list out all the language variants, and then only tentpole-ing specific language varients with unique features or reception aspects. Possibly also focusing on the open-source version of Wordle created to help with Wordle adaptions outlined in [2] and other sources. --Masem (t) 15:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see a Klingon version. Yesterday's Washington Post lists a bunch of others like Lewdle, Taylordle (Taylor Swift lyrics) and Nerdle (math formulas). But still no Elfin or Mangani? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

But it comes to the point that we're never ever going to keep up with the number of variants at this point so we should not necessarily list them all but the means which they came about and give an idea of the scope they cover (not only real languages but regional dialects, fictional languages, and other topics, like the NYC Subway system one), letting that EL above handle that heavy lifting for us. --Masem (t) 19:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Was there a consensus about what to do with the "list" of language variants? I would like to delete all of them, but I couldn't tell if there was much opposition here or not. I think we can just say that there are many languages variants and put a link to a website with them as an external link. Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19 I think this needs to be a point of discussion. I'm on the side of not including them. I think a link to the official version is the only one worth inclusion. If others are included, several problems are presented, including link hijacking among others such as a giant ever growing list of links. So I'm firmly opposed to a list of links of other versions. I'm also pretty sure Wikipedia:NONENGEL provides further justification of opposition. We could also add certain templates to indicate there is an external linking issue within this article. Happy for more discussion and look forward to arriving at a consensus. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point, I think giving the scope of how many language versions exist is sufficient as well as the other interesting ones. --Masem (t) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly removed the "Languages" section of this article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I got reverted. But is there any consensus here? Does anyone want to do anything about the list of langugages? Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that trying to maintain a large list is not productive; practically every major alphabet-using language and several others have a Wordle version at this point. I'd say at a maximum include one or two that have gotten the same level of attention as the original, but I doubt any reach that level. Explaining that dozens exist is enough.

We can probably also ask a similar question about adaptations in general. A ton of different variants have gotten some sort of mention in RSes, from the initial bunch of plain clones, to the many-wordles-at-once ones, to the mathematical ones, to the geographical ones, to Pokemon-based ones, to ports for Game Boy, and so on and so forth. They of course don't all warrant mention, but some probably do, and where do we draw the line? eviolite (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Variants

Should we perhaps mention Dordle, Quordle], and/or Octordle? - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Given we've already taken the language variants out and using the EL link that includes all known variant, we should not include these without significant third-party coverage. --Masem (t) 04:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording

The first sentence under "history" doesn't make sense. "Wardle initially the prototype of Wordle in 2013, inspired by making a word-based version of the color-matching game Mastermind" I'd cange it, but what's the intention? "...WAS initially the prototype"?--Varkman (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Wardle (with an "a") is the person, not the game. eviolite (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Live tournament?

Is this worth adding to the article? in reference to an event held at the 2022 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament

• Benveniste, Alexis (April 2, 2022). "Josh Wardle Hosts First Live Wordle Competition". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2022.

I'm not sure if it's worth a sentence or not, but if it is figure I'd make a note here. Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

New source

Help! - I am trying to add a copycat wordle to the article and I am having trouble citing it. I am trying to add the waffle game to it (Link to game https://wafflegame.net/),and cannot figure it out. I am not trying to vadalise. Please Help!

Thanks! Mynameisbob101art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisbob101art (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Added more

Would like page creators to know I added more Worldle spinoffs, like Weddle, Poeltl, and Dangle

Mynameisbob101art (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wd should really not be adding more as we have identified the page that is tracking all of the Wordle variants and we are clearly past overloading this section. --Masem (t) 15:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't try to list everything or such, the page already links the "Wordles of the World" list that does that better than a wiki page. I reworked that section to hopefully feel less like a jumbled list of recommended Wordles and group up the related examples and dropped a few that felt unnecessary. Pk11 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WordleBot

I fail to see why WordleBot rates a mention here let alone a full paragraph. The bot knows all of the possible 2315 answers of Wordle. A human Wordle player does not know that information, and so trying to compare a human's game play with the bot is meaningless. Am I wrong here? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, it is repetitive. Why does anyone care how to get from CRANE to the answer? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure the basis for the bot is what should determine it's inclusion, just whether it is relevant to the topic and well sourced. I agree it should be cut down, but certainly not wholesale removed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess it could merit a mention but this write-up does not represent what WordleBot does. Reference [45] is very critical and the contents of the reference is not provided in the writeup here. Reference [46] is at odds with both what the Wikipedia article and WordleBot itself says. The paragraph itself is grammatically and factually incorrect, but since no one is scrambling to change it, you might as well let it sit as is. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I did better than WordleBot did today.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Second word list change

On March 30th the NY Times moved (not removed) 16 upcoming words (Bobby, Eclat, Fella, Gaily, Harry, Hasty, Hydro, Liege, Octal, Ombre, Payer, Sooth, Unset, Unlit, Vomit, Fanny) to the end of the list, presumably again deemed uncommon or offensive though I find it odd that they didn't remove them entirely. Not sure if this is worth mentioning but if so here's a few potential sources:

• https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/31/why-wordle-game-284-had-two-answers-and-how-to-fix/
• https://mashable.com/article/wordle-284-two-different-answers-explanation
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2022/03/30/wordle-game-284-two-answers/7221888001/

(I can't find any source mentioning the fact that the words weren't removed entirely, I found that from my own research maintaining a clone of it) Pk11 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The word list has been changed for a third time today, with 6 upcoming words moved to the end and all(?) previously removed words being re-added to the guessable list (not the correct answers list), might be worth a mention but I haven't looked up if there's any articles about it yet. Pk11 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is "Wordle" italic?

I just now had a look at the Wordle article and noticed the name was italicized. I then looked in the history and the talk for some explanation for this, but couldn't find any. I then did a general web search and that didn't yield any clarification either. Not having found one, and being unable to imagine any that would justify an italicization that doesn't seem to appear anywhere outside of the article, I was going to simply change all the "Wordle"s to "Wordle" and let someone revert it if they wanted, but then I noticed that the title was italic and the change thus suddenly became too much of a hassle. I'm sorry if the justification has appeared somewhere and I missed it, but in any event could someone please explain the matter to me now? The italicization of Wordle seems silly and pointless to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one so regarding it regardless of any claimed justification. Like, somebody's going to bring a big lawsuit against Wikipedia if they format the name normally? Bret Sterling (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Video games and games in general are italicized on Wikipedia, per MOS:ITALICTITLE.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Operation, Trouble, Perfection and Boggle are italicized too. If board games are italicized under the MOS, it seems all games that are non-sports are this way. Probably as a published title CreecregofLife (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerebral726 and CreecregofLife. This looks like presumptuous overreach on the part of the MOS, then. I note that the editor who made the original MOS list of italicized titles, Ortolan88, added "computer games" over two years later (12 October 2004) with the note, "adding italicization of games, seems intuitive, will take a while to permeate, to be sure". If he meant to permeate the English language rather than Wikipedia, he's still waiting. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I suppose it's inconsistent in this regard. Fortunately, Unfortunately is not italicized, for example, though its genesis is similar to Wordle's (which, note, neither I nor anyone else italicizes). Bret Sterling (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bret Sterling: The justification for italicizing the games is because they are considered "major [creative] works", as seen in the section title for that page. Hence something like Wordle, which was explicitly created and published by one person, is considered a major work, while a sort of "party" word game like Fortunately, Unfortunately would likely not be considered as such, though I am not 100% certain. In any case, for concerns/suggestions about the Manual of Style in general, you'd have to raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as the italicization of games is certainly prevalent throughout Wikipedia (in fact, the {{Infobox video game}} template automatically italicizes the title by default.) eviolite (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your confusion is certainly warranted, and I do somewhat agree CreecregofLife (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Eviolite and CreecregofLife. I am no longer confused, but nor do I think the idiosyncratic italicization of "Wordle" can be properly justified on the basis of the MOS (with which I disagree on some points but don't care to mess with). It doesn't call for the italicization of "games in general", but rather of "Video games, board games, trading card games", word games being explicitly not mentioned. Furthermore, one notes in the same section: "Do not apply italics to other categories or instances because you feel they are creative or artful" – such as here, possibly. Looking further, I see that minor works are not italicized but put in quotation marks, which leads to questions. If a game can be a major work, then can't a game also be a minor work? Is every game a major work? That idea seems a bit silly, and enough so to cast in doubt the italicization of games as major works in general (or to create a separate category for games, with "major works" italicized and "minor works" not put in quotation marks but only capitalized, if that). But finally, in the same article, we come to the section "Neither", for "cases in which titles should not be in italics nor in quotation marks". It's doubtful that "Wordle" should even be considered a "title" rather than a name, but in any event included under this heading are "Traditional games, sports, dances, and other activities". I think this is where Wordle should be put, and I call for its deitalicization in this article, the imaginable opposition of the article's author notwithstanding. I think the consensus should be that there isn't adequate justification in this case for bucking normal everyday usage, which is decidedly and indisputably nonitalic. Bret Sterling (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

GA potential

I think that this article with a bit of cleanup can become a good article. The sources may need a bit more work though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Writing and Literate Cultures

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paslaskip1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sepetras, Aqp24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jljp6400 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Advertising

The NY Times has introduced advertising to previously ad-free Wordle. I think this is a significant development and should be mentioned on this page. A internet search will show that there are several pieces about the introduction of ads. Thriley (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Really doesn't seem significant... web services offering ads is not a new thing. Masem (t) 14:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree. The game is not so complex that introducing an ad doesn't significantly alter the way the game appears to people, and the introduction of ads is something that a lot of people mentioned as a possible detriment to the NYT purchasing the game. If we have RS's for it, it should definitely be included. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should add the information if RSes not explicitly about advertising write about it (I see some articles talking about trackers from a few months ago, but the articles about advertising are from news agencies that specifically cover advertising/marketing, like Ad Age and Ad News.) eviolite (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason The NY Times bought Wordle was to generate ad revenue. It’s not free for frees sake. We should be discussing this. Thriley (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We already say, in the section on the game's acquisition by the NYT Company, that the NYT stated that it "would initially remain free to new and existing users"; and that fans "expressed worries that the acquisition meant the game would eventually be put behind a paywall". The fact that it now carries ads is a small but significant step towards monetizing it, and certainly deserves a (brief) mention. GrindtXX (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple wordles

Derivatives Dordle, Quordle, Octordle, Sedecordle, Duotrigordle and Sexaginta-quattuordle should be mentioned. They don't seem to be covered anywhere in Wikipedia. Koro Neil (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wordle in popular culture

Should there be an "In popular culture" section for this article? I've seen some references to it in more recent media like CSI: Vegas' Season 2 Episode 6 and was wondering if there would be enough to add the section with since it is an obscure topic. 182.255.43.78 (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quordle

Quietly (not yet discussed) got acquired by Merriam Webster [3] Masem (t) 17:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)