Talk:Milk caps (game)

World Listings

Funrise is currently down, does anyone have a mirror for the latest listings? there were tournaments in Ontario, CA but those results have not been officially posted yet. --DamagedReactor (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pog #123

Is there a source that this is a rareist pog? From what series is it from? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find Google confirmation I'm removing to here:

" Pogs also come with a number. The rarest Pog is number 123."

lots of issues | leave me a message 30 June 2005 11:10 (UTC)

Suggestions for taking an improved photo

The current photo is quite illustrative, but it's not especially attractive, so I doubt it'll make the cut as a featured picture. If I might be so bold, I hope I can suggest how to take an improved photo, which might

• Go to your local stationer or art supply shop. They'll sell large pieces of thick paper (or thin card), at around 3 ft by 2 ft. See if they have one in a light gray shade (not white), and maybe a light blue or light yellow. Buy one (or a couple, if they're cheap)
• At home, find a place on the floor next to a wall. Put the paper in the corner so that half (or so) goes up the wall and half goes along the floor. This gives you a nice light, even background against which to photograph things, without distracting junk or patterns in the background. And the lightness helps to fill in shadows, making your subject look better
• I'd arrange five to ten of the most varied pogs on the paper. There's no need to show the whole collection, and that green holder thing really isn't attractive ;)
• Now you need two or three different sources of light shining on the scene. Angle-poised lamps, desk lamps, room lighting, standard lamps, even a torch shining on a dark area or a part you want to highlight can help. (Proper studio photographers have a more thought-out strategy about where to place lights, but you can do okay with what you can find around the house)
• I'd then take lots of different photos. Try with and without flash (sometimes flash can fill in shadows, but sometimes it can create worse ones), from different angles (straight overheard, or angled a bit). Standing farther away and using the optical zoom can sometimes help improve the depth of field.

Overall I'd really like to see the different designs of the pogs (which, after all, is mostly the point of them). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what i can do. --ZeWrestler 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC) It has a Buzzsaw POG for all I care, and there are no people in the photo whats wrong now.

Gambling?

Because many children would keep the Pogs they flipped in a game against another player, many school districts considered Pogs a form of gambling. This eventually lead to the banning of Pogs from several schools across the United States and the United Kingdom.

I find this idea silly. More plausible would be that pogs were banned because so many kids were playing them that it somehow got in the way (kids would start fights or whatever). It happens every time there's a fad that gets popular at schools. Eventually the school administrators decide they don't like it and they ban it. I remember when it happened with yo-yos and Pokemon cards, for instance. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that is kinda silly and I agree that the true reason that POGs were banned in meny schools is because teachers disliked them. But the fact remains that when banning POGs most schools cited 'Gambling' as the reason. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know it does sound silly, but if putting in your share of pogs "ante-ing up" onto stack, and then losing them all because they didn't flip in your favour, that can be considered a form of gambling. I do suggest, however, that other (possible) reasons for these bans also be mentioned.

Feel free to add some reasons--ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The fights and arguments between students may have been the reason for banning pogs, but those fights were started BECAUSE there was gambling involved. before you started a game, the two kids would decide if the games was "for keeps" or not ("for keeps" meaning that the winner would keep the pogs that he flipped). Of course, if you lost your favorite buzzsaw shaped pog, you'd be pretty mad.Johnmazz 13:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain how the game is/was actually played? I came here from some forum discussion where someone compared some other stuff with them, and I only see references to how these pogs were collected, and not how people actually used them to game with. antabus 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
oops.. I just saw someone else had already asked this question, can someone answer?antabus 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

POG is not a gambling game,for crying out loud Funrise makes POGS!Nobody ever plays for keeps anymore.

Milk or POG?

Were they originally milk caps or POG caps? It's plausible that both had the same sort of cap, but the article erroneously claims -both- as the 'origin'

I'm sure they recycled the milk containers to put POG into them. I mean, we're talking 30s Hawaii here.. probably one of the first name brand bottled drinks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Could be either.

Edit on the origin of pogs..

It seems to me that the origin of pogs is much earlier, and I have edited the page to reflect this.

When I was a six-year-old living in Japan in the early 70s (I'm an Air Force brat) we played Menko, a japanese game using thick cards of various shapes (including round) in which the object was to slam one down and overturn your opponent's cards. (sound familiar?)

Menko has been around since the 17th century.

Since there is a stong Japanese influence in Hawaii, I find it highly likely that the dairy farmers were in fact playing Menko.

This is very intresting information. Do you know of a source we can cite? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here are two...

• • http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950307/03070454.htm

--"The game traces its roots back to 13th century Japan. Immigrants carried variations of a game called ``menko to Hawaii in the 1800s. It had a sort of sandlot charm, kids playing a game similar to marbles with discarded milk bottle caps. "

• • http://www.sammlernet.com/literatur/details.php?id=2946

--"Based on the Japanese game of 'menko' and brought to the Hawaiian Islands by immigrants, the games were played with milkcaps until milk was put in cartons. "

Nice work, thanks. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I never knew Menko was played with milk caps I thought it was cards.

Another game

There is a game, I think similar to this one, where you have these small, plastic figures/creatures/monsters that you play with. Some can be glittery and they come in different colors... Does anyone know? --Shandris 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Bones maybe? 216.208.154.153 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes! Thanks so much for the reply! Shandris^{the azylean} 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you play?

I'm surprised no one has listed the rules. Perhaps an editor will volunteer? Omphaloscope » talk 13:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange thing to write an article about a game, mentioning all kind of odd trivia, but excluding the actual rules to the game and not even mentioning what the overall goal is.

I had over a thousand pogs at the hight of the pog craze. Funny thing was, not a single person at my school actually played any games with them, it was all a collecting thing. No one wanted to damage their pogs, it would have been like throwing pieces of metal at hockey cards. Think maybe there should be a section on that aspect of the craze. RichMac 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

be bold and add it! --Shandris^{the azylean} 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really remember how the game works, but I think there could be a clarification in the rules. It now reads "After each slam, the POGs are restacked." Are only the face-down POGs restacked? Someone that knows how to play can fix it if needed. stemperm 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that RichMac is right. Hence the term "Pog Wash" used to describe the whole game craze, as it was not really a game craze at all. People played maybe one game in their lives but quickly grew bored and focused on collecting. --139.161.2.10 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this --Banime (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A year on and still no information on how to play! Can someone add it? Would be a useful addition to the page. extraordinary (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Tazos de Colección? I would say Coleccion de Tazos. I changed it.

1920s or 1930s

The introductory paragraph says the 1930s, the history section says the 1920s. Which is it?--Jcvamp 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

pluralization?

On the official pog website's main page, it says:

• In 2006 POG, the classic game of flipping milk caps, is back with a whole new attitude.
• POG is available at specialty stores across the nation.
• ... about 15 years ago POG became popular again.

... and in the pog FAQ, it says things like:

• How many POG are in a series?
• Where did POG Start?
• These are some of the coolest POG out there!
• The player with the most POG wins.

Does this mean that, in the article, 'pog' should be both the singular and plural form of the word? and, for that matter, should the article be called 'pogs' or 'pog'? granted, there's no way any normal person i've ever known IRL would use the word 'pog' in that manner, but since it's used that way on the official website, should that be reflected here in the Wikipedia article? --Khisanth 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC) It's probably linked to Funrise

AAFES pog reference

I changed the REF tag to http://numispedia.org/AAFES/. The prior site listed (aafes-pogs.com) seems to be a shell site intended to generate traffic for other sites. Plus, it didn't have any original content. The new site has original and reference content to support all claims in the article and more. -- 72.200.97.103 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we move this section to a separate article or to AAFES since it has nothing to do with the game? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit

Hey all,

I added in-line references for most of the article. There were some sections and sentences that I couldn't find good references for (only blogs and message boards). If anyone can add those, it would be a great improvement. Also, I removed the trivia section because if the material in that section is actually trivial, it shouldn't be in the article. If it is not trivial, we can find a place in the actual articles' paragraphs for it. Sancho McCann 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone?

Did anyone not play the game properly but just collect POGS and look at them, they are awesome to sift through! RetroToysRUs 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Very true, read above we discussed it earlier. Most people did not even play the game, hence the game craze being cited as the "Pog Wash" --139.161.2.10 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone get rid of the stupid sentence in the article directly after Military Uses? It doesn't seem to be in the edit page.

What sentence? I don't see it in the version of the article that I'm looking at. Sancho McCann 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

me but I lost my collection.

What means 'skiting'?

In the section:

 World POG Federation

appears the following line:

  These pogs featured Pogman and released many series usually comical or skiting famous scenes, movies or other popular culture.

What does skiting mean in this context? Is it a Briticism or Australism or Newzealandism?

I looked in online dictionary sites and even urbandictionary.com - the word is unknown on the dictionary sites and urbandictionary lists several examples for 'skite', but none seem relevant... so my feeling is somebody who knows its meaning should substitute a different word or phrase that means the same thing.

I'd edit it, but I have no idea what the author meant. Damon Simms 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's meant to be Skitting. As in a "skit", being a short scene or parody of a scene? It seems to make perfect sense if read in that context? Just needs to be changed to a double t? spakatak 13:16, 18 July 2007

Info in lead

The info in the lead paragraph is intentionally redundant. It summarizes the article. I reinstated the recently removed material. Sancho 01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the line of "Besides games and collecting, pogs are also used for monetary purposes, etc." In general, the lead paragraph should introduce the topic and be somewhat vague, rather than going into specifics right from the get-go, such as the mention of AAFESS' use of pogs. That's my premiss. Groink 09:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good.. a little teaser to draw the reader in. I'll add wording along those lines. Sancho 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

passionfruit or papaya

Although this page says passionfruit, it's a common belief that the P is for papaya. If true, the article should be updated to reflect this. If false, a comment about the mistaken identity should be made.69.216.139.217 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any reference to Papaya as being the 'P', can you provide one please? The POG (Drink) page would be good for a clarification (which shows Passionfruit), rather than requiring one here. --Spakatak 03:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Before '91

The teacher they have credited as introducing POGs as a game in '91 was actually a few years late. I personally remember playing "Milk Covers" as early as 1987-88 on Maui,HI. We had ones from POG, but I also remember Brand X Chocolate Milk ones too. Some kids even had Japanese ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.222.249.82 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I am curious why all but one of the external links were erased from this article. I added the one I knew off hand back to the site, only to have it taken down again? Anyway not that Wikipedia isn't great (I'm addicted) but I like being able to read the article on a subject and then get other info/P.O.V. on the subject. For instance web info on POG's is slim, so I thought the list of links was handy... I hope those more Wiki savvy than I will add them back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.243.234 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tazos

"Tazos were also popular in the UK - these were effectively pogs with notches along their circumference which meant they could be connected together and used to construct rudimentary 3D shapes."

In Australia I never really heard the term "pog" growing up, ALL these were labelled as tazos. The tazos / pogs with notches around their circumference were known as "techno tazos", at least at first. 59.167.61.161 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait... what?

I was reading this page and this part stuck out at me

...These rules are not used in sanctioned competitions, after the 1995 incident causing the death of 2 players who agreed that thrown knives could be used as distractions.

lol what? i think this needs a citation if actually true, or to be removed (i'd throw in one of those tags but I nothing of editting wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.77.217 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That was removed, thanks. --Banime (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pogman!

ehy guys don't forget the most popular character of the pogs. POGMAN!!!!!!!!! A good idea is to create a page for it. thank --82.60.17.236 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems interesting but not sure if its notable or useful enough for an article. I'll look into it. --Banime (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Criticism

"Social commentators have generally dismissed the game of pogs as vapid and entirely menial. In particular, experts have pointed out that the game offers almost no opportunity for a child to develop strategic, social, or even motor skills."

I'm too busy to go looking for sources, but I find this rather misleading as it's not just random throwing the slammer, accuracy and speed is involved as well as consideration of the properties of the slammer when you get better at it. Competitions didn't just have random results, that's some strong evidence right there that skill in technique is developed. I know I can't put that up being original research, but it's pretty obvious. If anyone could find some nice sources perhaps for the elements that disprove that theory to be added in addition to provide a balanced view.

Viper168 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but both sides need to be shown as well. Perhaps some minor expansion of this section would better show all sides of the story, I'll look for more sources. --Banime (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest replacing or removing it. Note the "to be added in addition to provide a balanced view" portion of my post. Viper168 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

citation

I think the citation number 1 and number 2 need to be switched. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at what you were talking about and felt they both addressed the claims so I just added them all to the same claim. It's better to have more than one reference anyway, and we didn't need to switch anything. Is that what you mean? --Banime (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically what I was saying is that there was no reference to "Pog Wash" in the Air Force article, but that both the idea that the name POG was an acronym for Passionfruit/Orange/Guava and the existence of the game in the 20s before commercialization are listed in the Air Force article. I guess it can't hurt to list all the sources, though, as you say. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I went ahead and changed it to 1930's because of the other article, but let me go check and see. --Banime (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Uncited Neologism"

To whoever keeps reverting "my" edit, please discuss it here first. First of all, this edit I believe was around before I started watching this page, so I don't see how its "mine". Also, as you keep reverting it as it is "uncited", I don't know I see that it is cited and if you would wish to change it you can discuss it here. We really need to avoid a 3RR or something similar. However, I also have a slight suspicion that it could be the same vandal who was doing it last time and was blocked recently for two weeks. Regardless of who it is, please discuss it here so we can get a consensus and then figure out what to do and not do borderline edit wars. Thanks! If you have questions, ask! --Banime (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the cited "sources" mention the term 'pog wash' in any way. I've never heard it anywhere but this article, google finds nothing new, and the way the term is sprinkled gratuitously throughout the text makes me strongly suspect its originator of pushing it. You've reverted its removal multiple times, by different editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackobones (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. I have only reverted blocked user A plague of rainbows's edits, as it seemed to me to be cited (there are three sources next to it, only two of which are online, so I'm not sure how you checked it). I was just trying to prevent vandalism. --Banime (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As suspected, user:stackobones was a sockpuppet account of a blocked vandal. See checkuser for details. I am reverting his vandalism. If you wish to discuss anything we can develop consensus on it here. --Banime (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, he came back under a proxy to revert the change again. See the same checkuser above. All are welcome to discuss the article here, however I stand by what I said for now as I see 3 citations for it. --Banime (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

you have seen the citations, but you have not read them, as the term "pog wash" is not mentioned in any of them. they are false citations placed there by someone promulgulating a neologism, possibly you, as you have done in the past. your history of insistently reverting its removal while feigning ignorance at the paucity of the sources would seem to point in that direction. that is the conclusion i am forced to reach, reluctant as i am to consider your density.

As you haven't read any of my talk messages to any of your accounts (I guess most of them were proxies so it was difficult for you to check) I'll repeat it again here. Yes I checked the two online sources, however, there is a third, offline source for it. I have not seen the source, and I asked you if you knew where I could get it. Or if another user comes and lets me know that it is not in there then I'll be satisfied. I don't care about this edit at all and the only reason I'm not giving in to you is because you're an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and vandal who continually uses proxies to get around his block and continue to make vandalisms (see the warnings already on your talk page). That is why I am not assuming good faith in this instance, because I have before multiple times but unfortunately you have abused it. You can see why I am hesitant to let what you say stand. However, if you let me know where I can find the offline source I'll check for myself and make sure the truth is known. Thanks for reading, and you really need to stop getting around your block. --Banime (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)