Talk:Monopoly (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Monopoly (game) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
February 18, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

What's a designer?[edit]

I don't think Magie should be called a "designer" of Monopoly per se. Though her game might have influenced Darrow, it's like saying that Naismith was influenced by some other game when he designed basketball. (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@, I'm not sure how much you know about Magie's game, "The Landlord's Game," as well as how Darrow actually learned about the game of Monopoly (he didn't invent it, despite what Hasbro wants you to believe), but there has been established a clear line of how the game got from Magie to Darrow. If anything, there should be more names listed as "designers" or "influencers" of the game than fewer. Tostie14 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Magie clearly was an influencer of Monopoly; that is indisputable. Was she a designer? In my opinion, no, she was instead a designer of The Landlord's Game, which influenced (and formed the basis of) Monopoly. She did not directly design Monopoly, in other words, but her contribution and influence are enormous. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering that Darrow only added some graphical improvements and typed up the rules, calling him the sole designer is a stretch. See this board from Charles & Olive Todd who introduced the game to Darrow, and it only further muddies the "designer" waters: [2] (also on [3]). Tostie14 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monopoly (game). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Section blanked[edit]

a section and contents/sources was deleted. I undid the deletion and asked that a section deletion be discussed here. It was deleted again. I disagree with the edit summary something about how the well-sourced criticism section was "viewpoints". (which is what criticism is, right?) And also one of the criticism items was reference to a ranking which was subject to editorial review. I'd like to see the section returned to the article as there is enough available criticism for it's own section and I think it would be better in a section rather than in the body of the article, but if the section is not returned, the content or some of the content should be put back into the article.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My main reason for removal was that the section gave undue weight to a(n argurably) minor viewpoint. I will admit I am partly in the wrong by not taking it to the talk page first and instead just straight-up reverting. With that said, I do believe it is undue weight, and should be removed, unless you can convince me otherwise. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was curious about you saying WP:UNDUE because the section is criticism, so it's going to be critical. Also, the section, I think was developed by multiple editors over time, and the sources seem pretty solid especially as far as criticism is concerned. I'm not sure if I get your point, but if the section was changed to something like "Praise and criticism", would that be more balanced in your opinion? TeeVeeed (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
If this were a film article we'd call the section something neutral like "Reception", and make sure that there were enough opinions present to represent the general consensus. In other words, if the film had a 75% at Rotten Tomatoes, we'd try to include something like three positive reviews and one less favorable review (obviously I'm approximating here). I would suggest that if we're going to discuss critiques in this article then a similar approach should be adopted. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
"Reception" is exactly what a section in the board game Candyland has-(but it is all postive-no criticism). I have not found other sections in the board game articles yet. Also, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#External_links this advises to use (one of the critical sources), BoardGameGeek in articles. Also, one more thing we may want to consider here is that this is a former featured article.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My Connection to Monopoly[edit]

Since User:Spshu decided to note on the talkpage for this page and on the page that was created about me noting that I may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the Monopoly article, I want to clarify that I have not received any payment from Hasbro (makers of Monopoly) in regards to my producing of the film Under the Boardwalk: The MONOPOLY Story. I make contributions to the Wikipedia articles for the game of Monopoly and the history of Monopoly because of my depth of knowledge on the subject having spent many years researching the game and its tournaments. I fully recognize that there may be a perceived conflict of interest with me editing a page that covers a subject that I made a film about, but that shouldn't disqualify me from being able to work on other aspects of the Monopoly page. Many other editors who have written or edited this page in the past should be aware of the large number of contributions that I have made to this page over the years, especially around the history of the Monopoly tournaments. One such edit was the eventual removal of a bogus and unsourced addition of the "illustrator" Matt Pocock to the infobox that unfortunately lived on this page for years and then became referenced on many other webpages that used this Wikipedia article as its source. Kevin Tostado - Tostie14 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Requests for Monopoly Page[edit]

* In the "1990s–present" section (#1.5), the line about the 2003 US National Championship should be moved to the section about US Monopoly Championships (Section #8.1). I believe this doesn't belong in the history of the game section as it's more about the tournaments than the game.

* In the "Tokens" section (#3.6), if you review the linked source, the page currently incorrectly says that the cat got 29% of the vote. The 29% refers to the dog getting the highest percentage of existing tokens. The cat actually got the highest of the new token options in 2013 of 31% (again from the source that is linked there).

* Also in the "Tokens" section (#3.6), it states "All options would be available in the Monopoly Signature Token Collection limited edition released in the second quarter 2017." There are no plans to release a set containing all 64 tokens (Hasbro has never done anything close to this) and the referenced source doesn't verify this statement. There is currently a set on sale that includes 8 of the potential new options as well as the existing 8 (see <, and I have an email from a Hasbro PR representative that states that the winning token in each of the 8 categories will become the new standard tokens in the basic set (also known as #9).

I am asking that another editor please verify and make these edits so that my apparent COI doesn't cause a problem. Tostie14 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tostie14: Hi there Tostie14, firstly thanks so much for your patience and thank you for requesting edits. Okay, so regarding your first item:
  • I disagree that the sentence should be moved because it's outlining a timeline after Hasbro, although I did add a "(see section)" in there.
  • Yes, you're correct on this, I changed it.
  • This seems patently untrue as you can see here
  • As for your image, if you'd like to use it on Wikipedia, you need the person who took it to upload it in order to release their rights to it. Check out our uploading images guide for more info.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any questions! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Drewmutt for making the changes. At the time I requested the edit, the 64 token Signature Edition had not been formally announced or released. In regards to the reference request regarding the photo, I was simply asking for that photo to be linked to as a reference, not posted as media on Wikipedia. While valid fair use is a valid reason to post someone's photo without prior permission, I wasn't asking for us to post the photo on the page, just a link.
I kindly ask that someone now move this talk section to the archive. Tostie14 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

7th February[edit]

Right at the moment?

I’m researching a article about the 7th February: and WAS going to mention that, according to the page, as it currently stands, Monopoly was invented on 7th Feb, 1935.

The 7th Feb Article, as of 26th Jan, 2017

However, according to the article, itself?

The game was first published on the sixth February, 1935.

I’ve not moved the article, as yet: as I wasn’t sure what was the correct date.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone added "February 6th" as a publication date. It doesn't really have any significance to the game. If you look through the page, you'll see it was invented well before 1935. The only significant dates around there that are typically used are the patent granted date (Dec 31, 1935) and the patent submission date (Aug 31, 1935) for Darrow's patent (which came after both of Magie's patents). I suggest that we undo this edit made back on Sep 25 2016 ( that was unsourced, and then that would resolve the issue for your article as this date isn't important. Tostie14 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)