Template talk:Tables games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I preferred the vertical version. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 13:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is our categorization optimal? Sugoroku is older than most of the "historical" games, but is "modern"; Trictrac is still played (at least a little, right?) but is "historical". I'm not sure exactly what these categories are meant to convey. The easiest solution would be to mash everything together in 1 alphabetical list, though I'm not sure that's the best solution. Personally, I think it would be valuable to call out RG of Ur, Senet, and Ludus DS as "precursor games" or something like that, since they are not in fact played on a 24-point board. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought it was a bit odd. I wonder if a regional split may work better e.g. European, Asian, Middle Eastern games? Or yes, maybe based on board design. At least that would be useful to those who e.g. only own one type of board. Trictrac may have to be combined with other '24-point board games" even though it needs a special or adapted board. Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS And is Senet a tables game? I thought tables games were those played on 24-point board which had 4 'tables' as they were originally called? Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Bell's "Backgammon Group" and Parlett's "Tables" are broadly defined and include the Royal Game of Ur, Senet, and Ludus Duodecim Scriptorum. Parlett also includes Hounds and Jackals (which Bell places in its own category). Parlett's reasoning is explicit: that these are "multiplex" race games (i.e. many pieces) for 2 players (and therefore bilaterally symmetrical); this sets the group apart from the vast majority of race games. Parlett does helpfully segregate the aforementioned games into a subcategory: "Forerunners" -- which is better than my earlier suggestion because obviously race games should have forerunners. I'm not a huge fan of lots of subdivisions for such a small list, so I've put my simplified suggestion in {{Tables games/sandbox}}. The only thing I'd be pretty adamant about is that if games played on non-24-point boards are to be included in this template, they should be segregated (both for structural and historical reasons). Phil wink (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Jacquet and Laquet count as games with forerunners? Bell doesn't mention them and Parlett is likely to be a Christmas present lol. Bermicourt (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Murray and Parlett include them in the main Tables category. Although now I'm thinking of them as a comedy duo. Maybe a couple of bumbling cops, one tall and thin, the other short and stout? They can meet up at the Blot & Prime board & bar! Phil wink (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil wink Categorization should be based on reliable sources... what is ours based on? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, I'm not aware that the current categorization is based on anything at all. My suggestion at {{Tables games/sandbox}} is essentially based on Parlett's chapter 4. I've inserted the distinction of "played on a 24-point board", as this clarifies the quite tight-knit European Tables family from other probably more far-flung relations. Phil wink (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil wink Given your categorization is based on RS, you have my support. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]