Talk:Rock–paper–scissors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Rock-paper-scissors)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Rock–paper–scissors 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 April 13, 2004.

New Variation[edit]

A new variation by Michael Gregorovich is Cave-Water-Dynamite. The cave holds back the water but not the dynamite. The dynamite explodes the cave but is extinguished by the water. The water defeats the dynamite but not the cave. Water symbol is a flat hand. Cave symbol is a cupped hand facing down. Dynamite is an extended thumb.76.67.75.136 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see bullet one at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If you can cite a source, perhaps we can consider including this. Otherwise, I'm having a problem with how a cave holds back water.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael, not only is Aladdin 100% correct in that this is not a forum for discussion on the article's subject, but dynamite both works under water and is not composed of anything flammable per se, thus there is nothing to "extinguish". JesseRafe (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strategy[edit]

The strategy section only mentions methods to predict the opponents choice, but I believe observing the opponents hand and modifying your choice after they have chosen is an effective strategy. I seem to remember there is a robot that can play an unbeatable game versus a human opponent using this method. Also I think there are a few other similar methods that involve delaying your choice, going on the 4th beat etc. These should be included. Ashmoo (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, cheating is often an effective short-term strategy in anything, games, school, relationships or life. You might mention it is a way to cheat, sure.JesseRafe (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean "robot"? I ask because some people use it as a playful generic term even referring to programs and simulators, and there was one online (then made famous by being featured in the NYT) that "learned" complex patterns of a player and would, eventually, beat you everytime. As it was online, it did not, could not, proceed in that manner. If there was an actual robot with an electronic eye or camera that registered moves, and then cheated to beat the human, I don't recall an instance of it. JesseRafe (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If cheating is a widely adopted strategy for any game, I think the WP article should mention it. And I think most people don't realise it is even possible to "cheat" at RPS, or that people would even consider it cheating to watch the opponents hand. The robot I remember was indeed a mechanical arm/hand with a camera attached. I'll see if I can dig something up. Ashmoo (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Superfast rock-paper-scissors robot 'wins' every time, from 2013. --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rock-paper-scissors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Two authors at loggerheads?[edit]

This part of the article and the part after it reads like it is written by two people:

The first known mention of the game was in the book Wuzazu (zh) (simplified Chinese: 五杂俎; traditional Chinese: 五雜組) by the Chinese Ming-dynasty writer Xie Zhaozhi (谢肇淛; fl. ca. 1600), who wrote that the game dated back to the time of the Chinese Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD).[6] In the book, the game was called shoushiling (手势令; lit "hand command"). Li Rihua's (李日华) book Note of Liuyanzhai (六砚斋笔记) also mentions this game, calling it shoushiling (手势令), huozhitou (豁指头), or huoquan (豁拳).

Throughout Japanese history there are frequent references to "sansukumi-ken" (三竦み拳), meaning "ken" (拳) [fist] games with a three-way [三] (san) deadlock [竦み] (sukumi), in the sense that A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.[7] The games originated in China before being imported to Japan and subsequently becoming popular.[7]

One person wants to explain, and the other person wants to put more and more references to China into the article. It seems to me that a synthesis and rewrite is necessary here. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with RPS 25[edit]

Not sure if this is notable enough to merit its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s not. — Christoph Päper 08:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Names of the games[edit]

The section Additional weapons discusses a five-weapon variant in some detail, referring to it by two different names: the inventors' name, "rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard",[1] and the name used in an episode of The Big Bang Theory, "rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock".[2] The difference may seem insignificant, but that depends on the context. When players talk about the game informally, they know what beats what, and the order of the weapons in the name may not matter. But for analysis and strategy (as well as mnemonics) of any variant with more than three weapons, the order of the weapons is essential, and the name used there should reflect that.

Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard resolution diagram
Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard gestures
Resolution and gesture diagrams for rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard

The importance of order is visible in the illustration of the five-weapon game's structure. Starting with the traditional "Rock" and moving counterclockwise around the diagram, it follows the order of the name given by the inventors. The structure shown by the arrows is symmetrical and easy to read. But if Spock and lizard were switched, as in the name used in The Big Bang Theory, the pattern would be twisted and hard to read, and the corresponding name would be mnemonically incorrect and would likely lead to mistakes and arguments in play.

The files used in the diagram are named following the order in The Big Bang Theory. I have changed the names used in the caption (parameters footer, alt1, alt2) to match the order of the diagram and the original name, but not of course the names of the image files.

References

--Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it called Rochambeau ?[edit]

I came here to find this information, the redirection from Rochambeau leads here. but no explanation is given.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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) 17:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - There is a strong consensus against the proposed name change (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


Rock–paper–scissorsRock, paper, scissors – First off, this article is very badly written. Just look at the lead sentence! Also, the article refers to the game as “rock-paper-scissors,” yet the game is spelt “rock paper scissors” later in the article. About its name, by the way, when googling it, I only see “Rock, paper, scissors,” not “Rock–paper–scissors.” Why does the name use en dashes instead of hyphens, by the way? There are so many things wrong with this article. PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Move to Rock Paper Scissors. However you punctuate it, there will be people who punctuate it the other way, so the best option is to not punctuate at all.  ONR  (talk)  12:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, border on strong. Because it's not ever going to be clearly one way, might as well leave it as it is with all the inbound links intact. Many of the sources, even some of the best, such as the BBC, use hyphens/dashes (too many typefaces and too little interest for me say how many are which). In fact, over on the Evolutionary game theory article, every scientific journal cited in the relevant section uses hyphens/dashes, so I think that should be probative:

    41 Hoffman, M; Suetens, S; Gneezy, U; Nowak, M (2015). "An experimental investigation of evolutionary dynamics in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game". Scientific Reports. 5: 8817. Bibcode:2015NatSR...5E8817H. doi:10.1038/srep08817. PMC 4351537 Freely accessible. PMID 25743257.
    42 Cason, T; Friedman, D; Hopkins, E (2014). "Cycles and Instability in a Rock–Paper–Scissors Population Game: A Continuous Time Experiment". Review of Economic Studies. 81 (1): 112–136. doi:10.1093/restud/rdt023.

    The best we can do for this article is make it internally consistent for sure, but since it's not going to match up 100% with all the sources, and the current punctuation matches some big-name sources, and since that's the long-established name of the article, it should be kept status quo. OK, I convinced myself: Strong Oppose. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not that anyone has made this argument above, but in case anyone does below, I went through and every instance of commas between the words was when they were used as common nouns, not the proper noun name of the game, or any use of commas between the words or no punctuation at all matched with the published source cited. So the article is currently consistent in that regard. And for what it's worth, the website for the USA Rock Paper Scissors League now seems to be some Swedish travel website. JesseRafe (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh; oppose, I guess. Look, some would style it "rock-paper-scissors", some "rock, paper, scissors"; maybe some even "rock/paper/scissors". It doesn't matter, really. I could see worrying about this if it were a matter of diambiguation, so that a reader is spared having to select the article she wanted from a list. But redirects are cheap and the reader gets to this page quickly regardless of whether "Rock-paper-scissors" is the article name and "Rock, paper, scissors" is the redirect; or vice-versa. More Wikipedia CPU is being used to handle this discussion than will probably be expended in redirection. Oppose as a Waste of Time. 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES - " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" The main argument for moving is about inconsistency of the name within the article, which is more of a copy-edit issue rather than moving the page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't care, but big fat WP:TROUT gentle remonstrance to User:PapiDimmi for moving the article while the move discussion was in progress. I might even agree that it's a better title, but no, you just can't do that. It's seriously improper. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • PapiDimmi moved it again. This is unacceptable behavior and must stop. --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. PapiDimmi, knock it off. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The top hits on Google scholar mainly use dashes or hyphens, not commas. (There are some hits with commas further down but I put less weight on those.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Rock beats Scissors[edit]

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)