Talk:The Mansion of Happiness

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Mansion of Happiness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Mansion of Happiness was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 29, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Board and table games High‑importance

	Games portal 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.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Games (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Toys High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys 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.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

Snakes and Ladders?[edit]

Interesting. Is this based in any way on Snakes and Ladders, which was originally designed in India to teach morality and good behaviour (landing on a "good" square led to a ladder, while "bad" behaviour led to a snake)? Tonywalton | Talk 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question but have found nothing in connection with Snakes and Ladders. Both games are based on moral behavior; however, MoH appears to have a specifically Christian coloring. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

I rated this article "high" on the importance scale because it's supposed to be the first commercially produced game in the US. As such (if true, of course) this would make it quite notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section POV[edit]

Hello again. Before you nominate the article for Good Article status again, I recommend you take another look at the analysis section. It seems to promote Christian values while degrading Capitalism. Probably unintentional, but you might want to have another look at it nonetheless. \ / (⁂) 10:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the contrast drawn between the "First Board Game" and the ones that followed is necessary. I do not think it results in a biased point of view in any way. Perhaps someone elses opinion should be sought if that is what is preventing a reassessment.

Glubbdrubb (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination[edit]

Thanks to all who have contributed their time and talents with this article! Top-knotch evaluations only refine an article and bring it closer to GA. I've slightly rewritten the Analysis section and await comments here before renominating for GA status. Thank you! ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my comment would be to go ahead and renominate it. It certainly looks like a GA to me. Glubbdrubb (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, then. I'll send it to the "Miscellaneous" category at Nominations. Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to you guys! I can't review it, but it is looking like a significant improvement. \ / (⁂) 09:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game of the Goose[edit]

It's strange this article does not mention the Game of the Goose. The Mansion of Happiness is simply a re-themed version of the goose game, of which there are countless examples. There's nothing unique about Mansion in terms of game design.--Countakeshi (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

The Mansion of Happiness[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Speedy delist due to copyright violations, which have left article incomplete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another GA from the banned user via Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. The good news is that there wasn't that much content I had to remove because it was almost completely rewritten in 2013-2014. The bad news is that the new content is... not very good. There's a lot of citation needed tags and unsourced statements, and it seems to veer into original research at times, with the misconceptions section feeling rather unnecessary even before my cuts. Wizardman 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.