The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Josh Wardle, developer of Wordle(instance pictured), previously created Reddit's social experiments Place and The Button? Source: First sentence, and e.g. [1]
ALT1: ... that Wordle(instance pictured) was originally created just for the developer and his partner to play? Source: First sentence in second paragraph, and e.g. [2]
ALT2: ... that Wordle(instance pictured) was named as a pun on the developer's surname, Wardle? Source: First sentence in second paragraph, and e.g. [3]
Other problems: - ALT1 and ALT2 seem more interesting to me than ALT0, but both would have to mention what Wordle is. It may be worth mentioning how Shah selected 2,500 words from a dictionary of 12,000 or that the game only had 90 daily players as late as November, but that's outside the scope of this DYKN.
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Eviolite: Nice work. As someone who also has heard of this game, I found the article interesting. I only had one query about the DYK hooks; otherwise this is good to go. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:
ALT1a: ... that the viral online word game Wordle(instance pictured) was originally created just for the developer and his partner to play? Source: First sentence in second paragraph, and e.g. [4]
ALT2a: ... that the viral online word game Wordle(instance pictured) was named as a pun on the developer's surname, Wardle? Source: Second sentence in second paragraph, and e.g. [5]
ALT3: ... that Wordle(instance pictured) was played by over 2 million people on the weekend of January 8, but had just 90 players on November 1? Source: Second sentence in third paragraph, and e.g. [6]
@Epicgenius: I have actually modified ALT3 a bit because I realized it might be ambiguous (it didn't have 90 players for the entirety of November, just on one day), noting in case you have objections. eviolite(talk)16:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Sorry to ping you again, but an higher player count was published today and added to the article by Masem, so have modified the hook again... hopefully this is the last time I will need to change it. eviolite(talk)03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3A: ... that Wordle(instance pictured) was played by over 2 million people on the weekend of January 8, up from 300,000 the previous weekend and 90 on November 1? Source: Second sentence in third paragraph, and e.g. [7]Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything else to add right now, I just stopped by to comment. I hope this can make it onto the Main Page soon, as there's no telling how long it'll remain topical. {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I played the same game (under a different name perhaps but I don't remember it) on a PDA back in 2007. It's possible that this guy invented the same game without ever seeing the other one but it's unlikely. It had the same format, with 5 letters words and it required you to guess with valid English words and it showed when the letter was in the correct place, etc. It was exactly the same. 73.240.215.83 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that whoever added the URL had just jammed it into the existing platform field. I'm looking for an appropriate way to include the website in the infobox — since this entire article is essentially about that web site (web app), it does seems like this should be included at the top of the article. Looks like the most appropriate field available in this template would be the Notes field. (Either that, or a different template should be used.) I'm trying to make that change, as I type this. Let's see how this looks. - Zulu Kane (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZuluKane: As I stated above, {{Infobox video game}} has no parameter that would fit your needs. Other articles on web games just have the website linked at the bottom, such as 2048 (video game). Using a different infobox template would be completely counterproductive as you would also need video game-specific parameters like platforms and release date. eviolite(talk)01:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: move to Wordle. While there was concern expressed by some editors about whether this article is the primary topic, there was a consensus among editors that the current redirect has relatively low usage both among our readers and among sources and those readers could be accommodated with a hatnote. As the appropriate guideline notes that determining a primary topic is a matter of editorial discretion, and specifically notes long-term use is factor but not determinative, there is no policy or guideline based reason to override the clear consensus among participating editors that this article is the primary topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wordle (video game) → Wordle (game) – This was recently moved to "Wordle (online game)". I reverted this moved, but the point from the original mover is well taken that the game isn't really a video game. However, "online game" does not seem like the best disambiguator, versus just "game" which succinctly distinguishes from the other Wordle (another name for a word cloud). It is also usually called a "word game", if we feel that simply "game" does not work for some reason. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting a proper RM Cerebral726. Darorcilmir Please do not move war without discussing here at the extant RM, like you just did... In any case I had this initially at Wordle (word game) but it was moved by Jovanmilic97 per WP:NCVGDAB which seems reasonable and explicitly says to use "video game" rather than "game". However I don't see many RSes calling it specifically a video game (even though it would probably fit the strict criteria of one) so am unsure. eviolite(talk)16:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the question becomes whether this qualifies as a "video game" that needs to follow the conventions at WP:NCVGDAB. I think we have to follow RSes on this one (as you mentioned) over a possibly related convention and from my search there is an entire lack of sources calling it a video game and a plethora of sources calling it a game or word game. Since they both seem valid, the shorter (game) should be preferred. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense. So, I've also posted a link to this RM at WT:VG in case anyone from there would like to voice their opinions as this is certainly a borderline case. eviolite(talk)16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add/modify my initial argument above: even though this definitely does meet the definition of a video game, what more matters is how RSes discuss it as simply a "game"/"word game". --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is definitely a video game in my view. How simplistic it is doesn't really factor into the equation - it's online, electronic and playable. "Game" usually refers to physical games such as tabletop ones, which this isn't.ZXCVBNM (TALK)16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The standard disambiguation term "video game" includes online games, and even when we need disambiguation a video game, we don't simply use "game" as that gives a connotation that it is a physical thing. "Video game" is precise. --Masem (t) 16:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a nonstandard disambiguation term so not really preferred. In the body, absolutely, but disambig titles should follow consistent rules. --Masem (t) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles describe it as a "Wordle is a daily word game", a "simple word game", etc. Not a single newspaper uses the term "video". Josh Wardle, the developer, calls it a "daily word guessing game". I don't mind what we call it. I originally moved it to (online game). I really think we should avoid the term "video" which is just confusing. Darorcilmir (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, news outlets have no reason to call it a "video game", because that wouldn't tell people how it plays. But Wikipedia uses the most vague possible disambiguation that still works and only gets specific if necessary. This is for consistency purposes and to avoid making things overly confusing. If disambiguations pulled directly from what sources called things, it would be a total mess. This includes things like (action game), (online game), (word game), (puzzle game), and it was recently voted to eliminate the (visual novel) disambiguation because these things still fall under video games. So if Wordle falls anywhere under the umbrella of a video game, it should remain at (video game). ZXCVBNM (TALK)17:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would we call an online crossword a video game? What about the puzzles offered by Sporcle, e.g. "Name all the states of the US". The fact is that Wordle is too far removed from the normal concept of a video game. When I looked up Wordle on Wikipedia, and saw "Wordle (video game)", I thought they were talking about something else. If Wikipedia disambiguation is not doing the job, it needs to be changed. Darorcilmir (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wordle by requirement needs a interactive element, whereas crosswords and quizzes are not as interactive (an online crossword game may provide these features but they are not essential to the puzzle). That, plus being controlled by a computer, puts it as a video game (which woudl include browser games and online games). --Masem (t) 16:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, just "Wordle": Not to muddy the waters, but we could also assert that Wordle (video game) is the primary topic of the word Wordle over an alternate name for a word cloud. Tag cloud seems to receive no views from that disambiguation page. A simple hat note on the video game's page will probably serve better. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no wonder that "Tag cloud seems to receive no views from that disambiguation page." because the data that you link to is from December 2021, when the disambiguation page didn't exist yet -- it was only created this year. The title "Wordle" was a redirect before that, with about 300 hits a year. Distelfinck (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support just "Wordle" Wordle does not appear to be a regularly used alternate name for word cloud, but rather a specific program (which has since shut down). References in reliable sources were more to that specific program, rather than to use the word as a synonym for the whole subject. Indeed, of the article's sources, the only one using "wordle" is a now dead link to a word cloud hosted on that site.
In other words, were this Wordle the game vs. word clouds, there would be no primary topic, but if it's Wordle the game vs. Wordle the word cloud program, I'd argue there is one. Coupled with the obvious clear intention of readers at the moment, I'd be comfortable with that primary topic move, and we could always revisit down the line.--Yaksar(let's chat)20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move to non-disambig Wordle. When I have been searching for this, the first hits I have been getting are related to word clouds and the term wordle. To have a reasonably long-standing term overwritten by something that could just be a flash in a pan is not appropriate. Now if the game is still a thing in 3-6 months from now, that's a fair time to reassess. --Masem (t) 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is it's not really a "long-standing term" when it comes to word cloud -- it's a specific, now discontinued program that made word clouds, that was only added into the topper of the page a decade after it was created, and now no longer really exists. I'm genuinely curious where you are searching where it is coming up as dominant.--Yaksar(let's chat)03:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support just Wordle. Sometimes the Gordian Knot solution is the best one. I have a hard time believing the proprietary tag cloud software has ever had as much significant coverage in its entire lifetime to date than the word game has had in two weeks. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support just Wordle -- I surveyed news reporting from the last decade and "word clouds" came from a website called wordle, but are really just called "word clouds". The "wordle" references are to that website, not the word clouds it made. Let's make this move now, we can revisit in a few months if this dies down. Side note, the "video game" tag may be our policy on disamb, but holy moly it sounds dated to this non-gamer's ears.--Milowent • hasspoken17:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree on that last point Milowent. The use of "video game" when it comes to things like this or the NYT Spelling Bee seems like a fairly silly disambiguator (if they had had to be used). They are word games or simply games, even if they are also video games, and we shouldn't be beholden to using a disambiguator that no RS uses or only use "games" for physical board games. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to basename Wordle per (blatant) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And, though moot, strongly oppose misleading “video game” disambiguator. The guideline is wrong. The term “video game” should only be used to disambibuate titles of games that are commonly referred to as “video games”. Wordle is not. —-В²C☎
Support move to "Wordle" or "Wordle (game)". Not really a video game and not described as such by sources. Would be surprised if this weren't the primary topic at this point. Popcornfud (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment, most of those books including the one you mentioned use "Wordle" to refer to a specific program that generates tag clouds (which may or may not be notable) rather than tag clouds themselves. eviolite(talk)22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed it. Doesn't change my point though -- even though the service was already defunct, the title still got around 300 hits a year --Distelfinck (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put that in context, less than one person a day will be massively inconvenienced by the need to... click a disambiguation link at the top of the article to get to tag cloud, when previously they were automatically redirected there. Now that a notable thing exists with the name Wordle, the previous status quo of Wordle redirecting to tag cloud can no longer persist. Suggesting a primary redirect in this case beggars belief. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that suggesting a primary redirect beggards belief. But what would be the harm if we kept this article's title as "Wordle (video game)" and made "Wordle" a redirect to it? Distelfinck (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of "lack of harm" is practically meaningless on Wikipedia. Except in very extreme situations, it is difficult to actually do harm on Wikipedia in cases not involving BLPs. The relevant standards here are concision and precision. Redirecting "Wordle" to "Wordle (video game)", a title with a parenthetical disambiguator, fails on both counts. The latter is pointlessly longer and therefore less concise, and there is disagreement here whether it's a video game at all. I have never seen a case where I have supported redirecting an unparenthetical title to a parenthetical one of the same base name in 15 years. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I would say primary redirects from base names to disambiguated titles, like this one would be, do cause harm in at least two ways. First, to those that understand WP title conventions, the disambiguated title would incorrectly suggest that WP has an article about another topic called “Wordle” that is either more likely to be sought, or is about at least as likely to be sought, as this one is. Second, to those that don’t understand WP title conventions, unnecessary primary redirects like this contribute to keeping them ignorant of, or confused about, conventions like determining primary topics, avoiding unnecessary disambiguation and choosing WP:CONCISE titles, and cause them to take up time and space at RM discussions where others patiently try to explain... —В²C☎16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to simply "Wordle". This is clearly the primary use of the term Wordle. If the simple name is not used for this (even though it clearly should be), then it should be moved to "Wordle (game)" as "(video game)" is clearly false, and is confusing as well as misleading. "Video" implies visual movement, but this puzzle game has no movement (any movement would be superfluous). It has no audio, which would be normal for video. It is essentially a text-based game. "video" needs to be removed. And by the way, 300 hits a year is minuscule and should not inhibit correction of the name. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Wordle. It is concise and precise, the natural and recognizable result readers will expect when searching for "Wordle". The alternatives introduce unnecessarily complexity. - Zulu Kane (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWordle, delete dab and replace w/ hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER. Alternatively, swap with the dab and convert the dab to a redirect, but we won't need it as we're setting the game up as primary topic. My reply brings the count to 17 for Wordle to 4 opposing either the proposed title or Wordle. Was going to close this but I've taken to playing the game lately so I'm probably a little biased. ASUKITE16:48, 19 January 2022 (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.
References to entities that preceded "Wordle" such as "Mastermind", "Bulls and Cows", and "Lingo" are included in this Wordle article. Why was the reference to "Jotto 2020" and its comparison to "Wordle" removed from the article? Is that information not as relevant or relatable to "Wordle" as "Mastermind", "Bulls and Cows", et al.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonedef71 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tonedef71: if you can find any reliable, independent sources (i.e. not your own dev blog) discussing Jotto 2020, then we will happily add it back. The fact of the matter is Wikipedia only uses info cited in reliable sources, and reliable sources have discussed Wordle's relationship with Mastermind etc but not Jotto 2020. eviolite(talk)21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My friend has played 6 games, won all 6, but the "current streak" is 3. So the meaning of current streak is not obvious, and could use a definition in the article. Google search for this term is too cluttered with derivative results to be any help.
@Gapowers: Wikipedia can't publish original research, only things that are verified by reliable sources, so until sources cover it we can't add it to the article. However my understanding is that in order to keep the streak, you need to play daily, so if you miss one day's Wordle it will break your streak. eviolite(talk)16:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for the DYK hook—the source code for the game is public, so we theoretically could have "predicted" the next day's solution. It'd break, like, two or three dozen rules (WP:DYKSG#C6 and WP:PRIMARY come to mind), but I think it would've been fantastic. Maybe if we'd held it for April Fools', but I doubt the game will be trendy that long... well, what's done is done, and this will be a fantastic hook regardless :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i can't seem to open those links right now? so i don't know if they verify the claim, but if they do, i imagine the same reference should work for the articles on The Button and Place. --96.244.220.178 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it's not working for you. The exact bit of the source that mentions Place and The Button is This is not Mr. Wardle’s first brush with suddenly capturing widespread attention. Formerly a software engineer for Reddit, he created two collaborative social experiments on the site, called The Button and Place, that each were phenomena in their moment. Unfortunately there is no other info on Wardle's specific role with Place and The Button. eviolite(talk)13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wardle" isn't mentioned in the articles, but those contributions are attributed to his Reddit username. From The Button: Reddit administrator and creator of the button "powerlanguage" (sourced to this Reddit post). And then he isn't mentioned directly in Place, but following some links to Reddit turns up this post by u/powerlanguage. From what I can gather (and yes, this is probably WP:Original research), the NYT statement that he "created" the two social experiments is a bit of a stretch; both look to be collaborative projects between various Reddit employees, and this blog post about creating Place doesn't even mention him. I doubt any of this is reliable enough to put in the article, especially since none draws the obvious-but-not-explicitly-said conclusion that Wardle = powerlanguage, but to help answer your curiosity... Aerin17 (t • c) 03:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aerin17: Other articles before the NYT one also stated that he created at least Place - check the early revisions of the article, when it was cited to something else. He also says You may have heard of two projects I created at Reddit: The Button (2015) and Place (2017). on his own website, so I think it's conclusive. eviolite(talk)11:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we currently have written about American English is actually OR. The sources don't say the game uses American spelling in general - just that particular word "favor" (one [word] that used an American spelling, after the American spelling of “favour”) - so we can't say "Wordle uses American spelling". Additionally this is the literal definition of OR but I checked the list in the source code and "fibre" is indeed a word that can eventually be the answer. So, I don't think that topic is fit for the Gameplay section and if it needs to be mentioned at all, it should be in History (as it only pertains to one specific word). What do you all think? (cc Dr. Grampinator) eviolite(talk)23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it belongs in Gameplay. It could fit somewhere in History, but maybe should be presented as tongue-in-cheek as I don't think anyone was seriously upset over favor versus favour. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't add or capture the sources out there now but there are good sources that in wake of nytimes buyout, users capturing all of wordle to make sure they have a free version. since the word list is embedded in the source files. --Masem (t) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing this in my phone the display of emoji squares under "History" is a mess, as each line us split into two lines. Could someone create an image which won't degrade on a small screen? Thanks. PamD06:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Viewing this on my phone with the wikipedia app and on the mobile website appear to display it totally fine. Even zooming in to 500% on my computer doesn't break it. How are you viewing it for it to be an issue? ― Levi_OPTalk14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing similar issues on mobile using the Wikipedia app. On laptop it shows grey boxes and framed squares, but that's probaby because of my browser/OS. Can this be redone into a single graphic like the infobox image? Or it can have both the emoji version of it (for visually impaired) and the image? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levi OP: I'm using a Nokia 3 Android phone with Chrome browser. I can see the image ok if I'm in desktop view, which is pretty unmanageable. If I'm in "mobile view" I get the squares displaying in a row of four, then one, then four, etc. Even if I turn the phone to landscape (so the line of text below image goes up to the word "Palak"), the display is the same, centred, with a lot of white space either side. PamD22:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I was able to recreate the issue you were having by simulating a phone in my browser which made me able to see what you were talking about. I've added an extra layer to the text that will make it so that if the text is too long it will just continue on instead of going to another line. This should hopefully fix the issue. ― Levi_OPTalk00:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levi OP: Still not right: I can now get 3 versions on phone: (a) "desktop", where the image is tiny but correct and the text wraps round it; (b) one where the image is large, centred, and good; and (c) one where it's large, centred, and wraps after 4 emojis on each line. My experience of using Wikipedia on phone is always a bit strange, unpredictably switching me between different interfaces. PamD10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Trying to get this to work seems futile. I originally wanted to preserve the emojis instead of an image, so that users could see it how emojis would appear on their platform. But if it's causing issues, it probably isn't worth the effort. Your original suggestion of taking a screenshot instead sounds better. I think I'll take a screenshot of it on twitter, using their emojis, as that's how it was popularized according to the article. ― Levi_OPTalk15:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image (shown above) is captioned "A screenshot of a typical Wordle game", but it is not; the yellow "S" on line 1 is missing from line 2. Do we have something better? (Alternatively, we could just crop off the first line.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People play the game in different ways - the image was never meant to be optimal but rather illustrative of how the different colors work. "Playing a line known to be wrong" is completely normal in non-hard mode to find more letters that are possibly in the word - indeed I know people who use a known set of 2-3 words to start with in order to check as many distinct letters as possible. (If you never play a line known to be wrong, that is actually a strict subset of hard mode, as even hard mode does not prohibit players from using an already-eliminated letter in their guess.) If your issue is with the word "typical", we can just remove that from the caption, but I personally see nothing wrong with it. eviolite(talk)15:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should have a section discussing strategies that have been suggested. In fact, by exhaustive evaluation, a "perfect play" computer decision tree is now known, that will solve the puzzle with the minimum average number of guesses, whatever the hidden word (eg: Alex Selby, 19 January 2022 [10]). A similar solution, with optimal decision trees pre-calculated for various starting words, has been presented attractively in an easily explored way by Jonathan Olson at [11], calling it his "wordle solver" (see also discussion [12], albeit without the rigour of Selby).
This optimal decision tree solves five-letter Wordle in an average 3.42 guesses. With a slightly adjusted optimal tree, it is also possible to guarantee a solution in 4 guesses or fewer, for all but 18 cases.
Characteristics found in good and optimal decision trees could also be discussed -- for example choosing an initial word that gives a high expected information gain, eg by attempting to identify particularly common letters (cf Etaoin Shrdlu, although the letter-frequency order for the five-letter words used by Wordle is slightly different: 'R' and 'L' are higher, 'T' a bit lower), and preferentially placing them in the most revealing places (eg #5 for the letter 'T', #1 or #4 for a first try including the letter 'S'), which all can help secure a powerful first guess. Discussion could also be made of other popular choices -- eg the vowel-rich "adieu", even if this is not particularly effective ('u' and 'd' are both outside the set of highest-frequency letters, 'a' is not in as powerful a place as #2 or #3, and knowing the vowels doesn't give much steer as to which consonants may be present).
The point has also been made out there that while computers may be able to identify the optimal second guess for any result on a particular first guess, for humans there may be some first guesses for which the choice of second guess may be easier, as compared with other first guesses which may be more efficient with a perfect decision tree mathematically. But while I've seen this suggested, I'm not sure I've seen it developed anywhere particularly convincingly.
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, but I think there are article out there that discuss debates over the best starting words and strategies that can be included. --Masem (t) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a definitive source for date and place of birth for Josh Wardle? Some source says he is Brooklyn-born and others say he was born in Manchester. A search of FreeBMD for any Joshua Wardle born between 1980 and 1986 produces only this one born in Hackney in 1984. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: News sources say he was born in Wales: The Guardian says ... based in Brooklyn who is originally from Wales. Time says He grew up on an organic livestock farm in southern Wales (actually, this source provides a good amount of info other ones don't, so could be helpful for expanding the article.) Washington Post says from Wales living in New York. The Times says Welsh-born Josh Wardle, who lives in Brooklyn, .... BBC says Wales-born Mr Wardle, who graduated from university in London in 2006 and moved to the US for a masters degree in 2008, .... Nothing that I could find on date of birth though. eviolite(talk)20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The "organic livestock farm in southern Wales", seems to narrow it down a bit, although that is "grew up" not born. I think the Manchester-born Josh Wardle is a red-herring (i.e. a football player). This Daily Mail source we can't use says, "Wardle, who graduated from university in London in 2006 and moved to the U.S. for a masters in fine arts in 2008, worked as a software engineer at Reddit." So I was guessing he was born in about 1984 or 1985. I'm intrigued as to why he doesn't appear at FreeBMD as being born in Wales. But, of course, Josh could be a middle name or nickname. I guess if the BBC says he was born in Wales he must have been (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wonder if there actually is enough info to make an article about Wardle, though I'm not familiar with BLP notability and whether it would fall under BLP1E. I did some digging and found some additional older sources that do mention him as a senior product manager of Reddit in the context of creating Place: see e.g. [13], though that's certainly not enough to count as non-trivial SIGCOV so I'm not sure. eviolite(talk)18:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see the New York Times navbox at the bottom of the article. I don't see NTY as being intrinsically related to the subject matter; to my mind, someone landing on this page would be more interested in articles about word games and puzzle games rather than the NYT. The current navbox isn't exactly WP:PROMO, but I still feel a bit uncomfortable with it. Jowa fan (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can the article describe how repeated letters are handled? E.g. if the word is MOOSE and the player submits SHOTS, how is this marked? Or does the puzzle not have repeated letters? 84.69.143.173 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It only shows the best result of the single instance. The O in SHOTS would be green. The first O in OBOES would be yellow, the second green. --Masem (t) 23:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's another question relating to repeats. Say the answer is REBUS and the guess is RRRRR -the first R would be marked green, I assume, but what about the others? Gray or Yellow? I suppose a corollary is what if the guess is XRRRR all 4 yellow?, just 1 yellow?207.155.85.22 (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Green indicates that letter is correct and in the correct position, yellow means it is in the answer but not in the right position, while gray indicates it is not in the answer at all."
Wrong. If the wordle is CHECK and the word attempted is ETHER, all letters will be grey apart from the yellow first E. The second E is grey, but that does not mean "it is not in the answer at all". E is in the answer. 49.176.65.160 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably leave the examples to the references so we won't have to make our own interpretation as with word: CHECK, guess: ETHER: no greens, first E is yellow, T is grey, H is yellow, second E grey (no second E in answer), R is grey. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are unclear, and rarely discussed or presented lucidly. Here's a compressed but still comprehensible statement of instructions that will answers the question:
"Enter a word to match the wordle. Non-words are rejected, no penalty. Any letter present N times in the wordle goes green wherever it's at a right spot—and yellow at wrong spots, counting from left to a total of N colourings. You have six tries."
Angus, before we get to that: "Players have six attempts to guess a five-letter word, with feedback given for each guess in the form of colored tiles indicating when letters match or occupy the correct position" – are "match" and "occupy" different? Tony(talk)04:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Eviolite, that's the intended grammatical construction, where yellow tiles "match" and green tiles "occupy the correct position." With the mechanics of any game, there's a serious danger of getting too far in the weeds (hence I didn't mention the particular colors). I advocate for a concise summary in the lede; I think the game's treatment of repeated letters is a detail best addressed elsewhere in the article. — HipLibrarianshiptalk02:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am restoring the below as it is a suggestion of a source that contributors to the article might want to use. Wizzillo, please go easy on reverting talk page posts, per WP:TPG. It is a perfectly good talk page post.
It's very similar indeed to the Word version of Mastermind? Aside from using 5 rather than 4 letter words, it seems essentially the same game to me. Even down to using different coloured squares/pegs to indicate letters in the right/wrong place. Walshie79 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colours can be arranged in any random order, which is not true of letters in English words. So skilled play is enhanced by language knowledge and vocabulary. But yes, the outline principle is just the same. Someone must have made this point in the press coverage (see Jason Riggle, below). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me and a roommate were trying today's Wordle (me at old location https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/wordle/ and him at the new location) and we noticed old Wordle had a different word of the day from the NYTimes location of Wordle. Hope we continue to get two Wordless a day. What time (UTC) would it be appropriate to say what those words of the day are? --EarthFurst (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to access it because I still had old location as a tab. I reloaded the tab and it redirected me to new location. Going to sleep. Maybe if you load the old location with NoScript turned on?? --EarthFurst (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Josh Wardle's article has significant overlap with Wordle and nothing else that isn't resume-like on its own. There isn't enough to separate Wardle & Wordle at this moment. Adding Merge templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpop (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I get the argument and how the underlying principles apply, but I think we serve our readers better by keep the articles separate. The person and their game are quite distinct topics. Merging a section about the author into the game article seems contrived and clunky. So, I oppose per WP:IAR. --В²C☎15:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I believe Wardle meets the WP:GNG with plenty of sources in that article that obviously also talk about Wordle, but where he is the still the main subject. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Josh Wardle article isn't the best, but he's done a lot of notable things that aren't wordle that I don't think would merge very well into this article. ― Levi_OPTalk17:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I can see the WP:BLP1E argument for merging, but after looking into this, I think there's enough coverage for a standalone page. [16][17] are examples of significant reliable source coverage that focus specifically on him, meaning he meets GNG, and I think Born2cycle has a point above that we don't want biographical information about him cluttering the Wordle article. I also think Levi_OP has a point, given that he created Place (Reddit), which has its own article. My oppose is weak because I have yet to see any coverage of him that's not at least partially focused on Wordle, and forking is a big cost to be overcome. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, but I just don't think Wardle is notable enough for his own article. Wordle per se wouldn't be significant enough for its own article if it hadn't become a viral phenomenon. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an example of WP:NOTBLP1E since he has done other things besides Wordle, and is likely to continue to do so; and as others have shown he meets WP:GNG with sources covering him specifically. WestCD (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Josh Wardle was notable and known long before Wordle was ever a thing. The two pages should be kept separate. 08:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:C700:8C1:7139:4848:E8D3:EDC6 (talk)
Support. All the independent sources talking about Josh Wardle exist because of Wordle's success. Per WP:1E, we should not have articles on people who play a major role in minor events. According to that policy, a major event is something like a presidential assassination. Wordle, while viral, doesn't meet that threshold. – Anne drew15:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wordle isn't an event, and WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here as If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented is not at all the case. Additionally, his past work at Reddit shows that he's known for other things too. Sure, he wouldn't have his own article if not for Wordle, but that is not the only thing contributing to his notability. Also agree with others that merging would make the Wordle article worse. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per reasons above, as from what it sounds like, Wardle was at least somewhat notable, but Wordle pushed him over the threshold, however much he was straddling the line previously--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you take the wordle section away, what remains - reddit? It's a notable site, but it doesn't make people who worked on it notable by default. And the two citations as I'm writing this are Wardle's LinkedIn and personal website. Perhaps he'll start a notable company with the money that The New York Times bought Wordle for, so let's save the article for then? EditorInTheRye (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has a career outside of Wordle, and the NYT is now in control of the Wordle game. He's a separate entity and should be treated as such. --Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wardle seems fairly notable outside of his connection with Wordle, I would say this is certainly enough to keep a separate article. -- Navarre0107 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per User:Sdkb, and per WP:CREATIVE notability criterion #4: "The person's work...has: (a) become a significant monument...[or](c) won significant critical attention" (yes, that is the criterion for the creator of a single work having their OWN WP:BIO seperate from the article on that work). Llew Mawr (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2022 (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.
Yes, Wordle is not an original idea; the article already notes the similarity to games like Jotto. Also, that game you linked is significantly different from Wordle in several ways: for three, the input does not have to be a word, there's no guess limit, and Word gives you the exact order of the matching letters (e.g. CAD in that example). In any case, asserting that they are similar without the connection being verifiable in reliable sources would be entirely original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. eviolite(talk)03:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not played Wordle ( https://xkcd.com/2576/ ) so thanks for clarifying how it works. In the article they indicate that "the prototype allowed for endless play, with players able to play puzzles immediately after each other, and its wordlist was unfiltered" which sounds like the BASIC Word game. I think it is fair to say that the hook is the results display. This was not part of the BASIC Word program. Nor was it part of the original prototype; the article indicates it came from "a group of friends from New Zealand who had found the game in late November and described their results in the emoji format". Is it correct to say that the alleged author "created the game"? Maybe "derived" or "adapted" or "ported" would be more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.14.71 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are making a misunderstanding. The game looks like what you are seeing on the right here, with a keyboard below; once you enter a word it gets colored gray, yellow, or green like that. This essentially replaces the "There were 3 matches and..." and "From the exact letter matches..." lines of feedback in the BASIC game - it is entirely graphical. Presumably, this was also the case in the prototype. The emoji format only comes after the game is over and you have the option to share.
I still don't see why Wardle shouldn't be considered the author or creator. Reliable sources certainly describe him as having created the game, and just because it is similar to or inspired by previous games doesn't mean it can't be a creation. You wouldn't say that, for example, Samsung didn't create their Galaxy phones because Apple had already created a portable touchscreen device with calling and apps. Also, as far as I know, some aspects, like having only one game per day were originated by Wardle (at least in terms of this type of guessing game). eviolite(talk)04:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two citations for the creation allegation. One leads to a paywall and the other has the author himself stating "The first thing I have to point out is that I did not come up with the emoji grid." Maybe "synthesized" is a better word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.14.71 (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT1 and ALT2 seem more interesting to me than ALT0, but both would have to mention what Wordle is. It may be worth mentioning how Shah selected 2,500 words from a dictionary of 12,000 or that the game only had 90 daily players as late as November, but that's outside the scope of this DYKN.
@Eviolite: Nice work. As someone who also has heard of this game, I found the article interesting. I only had one query about the DYK hooks; otherwise this is good to go. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. ALT1a, ALT2a, and ALT3 all look good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
