Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of games in game theory

List of games in game theory

A nice complete list that I think meets the criteria. It has no references, but it includes only information from other articles. If needed, I can copy all references from those articles to this list. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Lacks sources. It could use a longer lead that would introduce the subject better. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references, I will think about what to do with the lead section and modify it soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually at a bit of a loss for what to do with the lead section. I don't want to repeat the material contained in Game theory. Can you suggest what you might like to see there? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to expand it would be what the headers of the columns mean. That way readers won't have to read a separate article just to understand this list. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few sentences (and links) for each of the column headings. I suspect the target audience for this list would be people who already know these concepts, or at least have heard of them. So I don't think more detail would be appropriate. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I won't oppose for now. At this point, however, I'm also at a loss of how you could improve the list. May I suggest you advertise this nomination a bit in Math-related noticeboards around Wikipedia. I already did on the talk page of Game theory. I'm sure enthusiasts would be able to give you better feedback than myself at this point. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have advertised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. Unfortunately, there aren't many active members currently, so we still might not get too much. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm a bit confused by your previous comment, do you think the list is still in need of some amorphous improvement? Is this why you aren't supporting? Or is it just that you don't feel like you know enough about the subject? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of both. I've got the hunch the list could be improved somehow in terms of content, however since I don't know enough about the subject (and at the moment I don't have the time to learn much about it) I can't give you a proper "vote" either way anymore. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of references, can they be linked to specific points in the text/list with "ref" tags? The only other suggestion I can think of is to subclassify, I don't think it'll be worth the effort though, and it would kind of make it no longer be a "list". Pete.Hurd 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have discursive footnotes, I was remiss to add reference footnotes as well, but perhaps that's worth doing. Can you think of a way to remove the discursive footnotes perhaps? I think the best way to do sub-classification would be by adding more columns, otherwise it really becomes an article on games in game theory (which might be worth having). In fact, do folks think that might be a better way to go than a list? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm confused, as some of these seem to be more diverse 'classes' of games (like coordination games) while some of these are 'specific' games (like PD). Is this appropriate? Also, there are some other things that could be added, such as fields of application, origins, etc. Those two sound interesting to me, but they might make things cluttered. What do you think? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think coordination games is the only set on the list which contains members of other sets on the list. Since, sometimes, people talk about coordination games generally, and also because there are coordination games which do not fit into other categories, I thought I should include it on its own. I'm don't really see the problem with that. Can you say more about why it bothers yu? Re: other things. Let me think about it. My first intuition is that it will make things cluttered. Also, I'm not sure it will be easy to find answers to the origins question in all cases. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]