Wikipedia

Talk:History of Monopoly/Archive 2

< Talk:History of Monopoly
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 October 2006 and November 2012.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:History of the board game Monopoly/Archive03. Thank you. --JohnDBuell (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Not editing anything, not a pro, just calling your attention to an article published in "Antique Toy World" magazine, February 2008. Auctioneer, collector and consultant on antique toys for the Antiques Roadshow, Noel Barrett, has unearthed the second known Monopoly game set known as the Tie Box set with some hand typed money, and hand-colored oilcloth roll up game board. The other example appears to be on occasional display at Hasbro headquarters. The article is interesting and prompted me to read your history.

From a fan of wikipedia.

Untitled

I put the citation needed mark before the 1994 for the additional versions. I remember a canada version long before that date.

Last sentence of introductory section is unclear

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I quote it here: "Other cities, territories, states and countries, and licensed properties have also become variants and editions of Monopoly." What exactly does this intend to say? Cities and territories cannot literally become editions of Monopoly; they can become the basis for an edition. If that's all that's meant by this sentence, it's redundant with the previous sentence and should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edonovan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 December 2006.

Agreed - I've removed the sentence and changed 'cities' to 'locations' in the previous one to cover any versions not based on a single city. Barnabypage 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question was NOT part of the FA version of the article (and yes it only introduced redundancy and confusion), so sincere thank yous to Barnabypage for removing it. --JohnDBuell 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Article title "run-off"

Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments20 people in discussion

As there are five votes each for keeping the current title and moving it to History of Monopoly (game), I'm going to ask for one more round of voting, and try to establish a consensus. If we either leave the title or move it, I can foresee an edit war due to the lack of consensus under one proposal or the other. So, please, cast a support vote for either of the two proposals underneath. Reasoning for either has been given (see the Talk archive), but if anyone has anything constructive to add, please feel free to do so below. --JohnDBuell 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep the current title

  1. Support --JohnDBuell 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Trebor 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. "History of the game Monopoly" works as well. Gracenotes T § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: I believe that this article naming is just about akin to History of the name Azerbaijan. I would prefer that over History of Azerbaijan (name). 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support -- For the clarity and lack of any ambiguity. Redirects can handle cases of consistency. Fieari 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - History of Monopoly (game) introduces an unnecessary ambiguity. Perhaps a compromise at "History of the game Monopoly"? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support -- SailorAlphaCentauri 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Change title to "History of Monopoly (game)"

  1. Support — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) — Personally I much prefer the current title and can cite plenty of reasons why, but the main article is "Monopoly (game)." "History of..." is merely a prefix and should no change the main title reference. Ergo, "History of" + "Monopoly (game)." If there's going to be a debate, then it needs to be about the name of the main article (with any change/decision reflect here). P.S. Since I haven't participated in the debate to this point I should mention Monopoly is my favorite board game of all time (with many, many hours and days and weeks and... of play time).
    The only reason I disagree with your logic is that the article's content could be misconstrued as one about a game called "History of Monopoly". It sounds silly, but the current title avoids ambiguity. The main article is about a game; this article is about a history. Instead of having (game) potentially being seen as modifying all words prior to it, we can avoid that by having the article's title be "History of the game Monopoly". Of course, if you wanted to be specific, you could say "History of the board game Monopoly." Gracenotes T § 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps the main article should be "The Board Game Monopoly", the current disambiguation of the main article is not reader-friendly. The main and history of titles really should match, or if not, it should be decided in discussing both together to reach a final consensus. (As in, for consistency, what title would work for both the main and "history of" articles which would be suitably unambiguous for both?" IMHO, of course. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    If I were going for consistency, "History of Monopoly (game)" would be the most ideal title. But I'm not going for consistency, because I believe that consistency needs to be sacrificed for clarity. The latter of which (in my opinion) is somewhat more valuable. Just my 0.015670297 euros. Gracenotes T § 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    As I said, my personal preference is for the current title—of course, my two cents came down on the side of consistency. :-) Clarity of the title leads to confusion in its finding. (I for one am now accustomed to typing "History of" in front of the name of an article to get more information.) "The Game Monopoly" would be fine for the main article, then "History of the Game Monopoly" here. It would be a stretch to think that someone meant statistical game theory applied to the development of monopolistic economies and the history thereof. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    This argument applies just as well in both directions. The game is also not called "the board game Monopoly", just as much as it is not "Monopoly (game)" or "History of Monopoly". siafu 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as before. siafu 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, because it should follow the name of the main article. Tuf-Kat 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, as before, and because “board game” is irrelevant to classify games. Juiced lemon 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, for the second time. CG 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, seems to fit wikipedia's style Yavoh 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, unnecessarily long and awkward title. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, more conventional. Tuviya 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support for lack of better options. — Werdna talk criticism 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, History of Monopoly (game) logically follows Monopoly (game). timrem 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. support ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, History of Monopoly (game) reads as if it is about a game called "History of Monopoly", creating ambiguity rather than disambiguity as the modifier is intended. Although the current title isn't optimal, I prefer it over this. -- kenb215 talk 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, the parenthetical description is used only when there is a conflict with another page or when context is necessary. Moving it to History of Monopoly (game) is unnecessary. Arguing that the article on the game is Monopoly (game) and so this should refer to "Monopoly (game)" misses the point of what disambiguation means. It doesn't change the title of the subject, it's just a technical convention to deal with the technical problem of being unable to have two different articles at the same page name. (Different software can do this, but the way Wikipedia is set up we can't.)

Incidentally, is there any reason the article is not at History of Monopoly? The "the board game" part of the title seems superfulous. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is in the archive and essentially concluded it would be too similar to History of monopoly - an article on business. Trebor 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't think that's necessary on technical or other grounds, but I didn't participate in that discussion. :) I added a disambiguation link to the top of History of monopoly, since I suspect many people will search for that and get lost looking for this article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad pictures

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The pictures have suddenly been changed to ones of genitalia... what is it?~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals at their evil work. Unforunately, I'm not sure how to fix the damage.... RobertAustin 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was surprised, needless to say, when I clicked on the featured article. In the future, Wikipedia should lock unregistered users from editing featured articles... it always happens.
The Edit link doesn't display the source code for the images. The picture is repeatedly displayed, so that rules out changing the picture "BoardGamePatentMagie.png" (or whatever the first image's URL was) to the vandalized one... Rangi42 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Locking or semi-protecting featured articles when they are the Featured Article of the Day has been a contentious topic for some time. I don't see any resolution coming for this any time soon. For that matter, there are some users who feel that fewer and fewer anon edits should be allowed. --JohnDBuell 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We generally do not protect Today's FA. One good solution is to add the day's FA to your watchlists and help to revert the vandalism that hits it as quickly as possible.--Kchase T 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't people who do this even once get ip banned from editing? I for one, am tired of trolls who feel it's neccessary to be dicks and vandalize featured articles. One example was the featured San Francisco article, where someone deleted everythign and added "home to faggots worldwide" -- pissed me off to no end

holy moly, I opened the page on a projector to a room full of college kids. We're still laughing

Why doesn't Wikipedia just have the featured article link to a specific version of the FA? They woulnn't have to lock the page this way.
Because the powers that be hope that there will be constructive additions made to a Featured Article on the day that it's "Today's Featured Article." --JohnDBuell 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures....

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I got rid of them :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.148.84.73 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you good sir, they were literally an eyesore

The First Paragraph

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Why does the first paragraph not say what country it is talking about? It could be talking about Indonesia for all i know. Shouldn't this have been read before putting it on the front page? *sigh* Cokehabit 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a board game, originally developed in the USA, which IS mentioned in the first paragraph. The introduction is no more specific than that because of the game's international history. Adding geography to a non-geographic subject would seem to make no sense. --JohnDBuell 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a terrible start to an article: The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 1900s. Where? How? References?
Yes we do give references. But you have to read them yourself to get the information you're asking for... -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on original designs by Elizabeth Magie - If it can be traced back to Elizabeth Magie how come there were several designs over 30 years? Why is her name in there if the origin, date and original designer isn't known? When were her designs made? Which of the several designs were hers?

That's because Monopoly was like a wikipedia article. Magie made the first few versions, then other people tweaked it over 30 years. So the name and the design both changed as time went by. It's still basically the same game though. Very much like a Wikipedia article really. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean it is very bad and never should have been on the front page. Next time a bit more thought should go into picking it as a featured article because it certainly isn't one of the best articles in wikipedia as the {{featured}} suggests. If the start was changed then it would stand a chance but not as it is. Cokehabit 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, so you say. Others disagree however. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
First paragraph is just fine, and I found the article particularly illuminating and entertaining. Well done all around! Based on Cokehabit's moronic screen-name, I think we know how much stock to put into their opinion.68.146.198.203 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If one really is confused about what "Monopoly" is, well, there is a link to that article in the first sentence. You'd have to have a drug-addled mind or a low IQ not to realize this is an article amplifying another one.68.146.198.203 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Introductions generally have two styles. One style is to summarize EVERYTHING within the first two-three paragraphs (an "Executive Summary" style), which would allow the reader to skip reading the entire article. The other style is to introduce many of the ideas and concepts covered in the first two-three paragraphs, and hopefully entice the reader to read on and learn more about the ideas and concepts through the body of the article. For the introduction section here, I chose the latter style. --JohnDBuell 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Further evolution of game play

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Further evolution of game play section, it mentions that the rules of Monopoly have remained rather stagnant over the years. However, no mention is made in the article (even later when it mentions the variations on Monopoly) about the special rules that have been instituted in the newer variations of the game.

For example, the Looney Tunes: Official Classic Cartoon Edition of Monopoly includes the following rule variation: doubles take on extra meanings, or "Looney Tunes effects." Extra tasks can be carried out depending on the value of the dice roll (double ones, double twos, etc.). --Tim4christ17 talk 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That actually is in the text and has been for some time: "When creating some of the modern licensed editions, such as the Looney Tunes and The Powerpuff Girls editions of Monopoly, Hasbro included special variant rules to be played in the theme of the licensed property." --JohnDBuell 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Im concerned about the images on the top of the page. I can't seem to remove them, and I am concerned that leaving up the page will do damage to WIkipedia's reputation. Until it can be fixed I think it should be taken down. Bok269 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing images, image links and other such nonsense are common tactics of vandals. This hasn't been the first page to have been so affected and it will not be the last, either. Action should only be taken to revert changes of images, and blocking on the most disruptive users, as is done already. --JohnDBuell 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I got it fixed. Apparently the guy named the image to something along the lines of monopoly, in order to prevent people from finding it easier. --Jazz Remington 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I definately agree that the damage should be reverted and that be it, but the problem was that seemed impossible. I thought it best that the admins should take it down all together until it could be fixed. But, as long as its fixed Im happy. Bok269 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone put a disturbing image up on the top of this page and I don't know how to edit it because i don't use wikipedia much for editing and stuff but i feel itshould be known.thanks. 204.194.98.16 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Joseph M

Title is suboptimal

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Needs moving to History of Monopoly. Honestly, the current wording is awkward, ugly, unnecessarily long, and generally suboptimal. — Werdna talk criticism 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Monopoly is an economic concept and an article about the "history of monopoly" would have some American readers, for example, expecting to see a discussion beginning with the Sherman Act. In any event, though, History of Monopoly is a redirect to this article (with a disambiguation at the top), so no harm done. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as a problem. "Monopoly" as a singular common noun lacks case: we say, 'ADM has a monopoly on lysine,' not 'ADM has monopoly on lysine," so the economic article in question would be better titled "History of monopolies". User: Cyrus.pilcrow
Werdna and Wooty: You're entitled to cast your votes at the discussion that's been going on for some time. --JohnDBuell 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the vote. Thanks. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the discussion above, I don't see History of Monopoly there. — Werdna talk criticism 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It had only two votes (see the archived talk page). The two proposals above had an equal number of votes - and on a no consensus decision the best thing to do in my experience is to cut down on the number of options. --JohnDBuell 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - the current name is perfect. 68.146.198.203 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

This article is fantastic. Sincerest compliments to all who worked on it. Paul 06:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded! Cool topic. Wickethewok 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Excellent work. (Coming from a lurker who never says very much.) 68.253.133.63 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes great article well done everyone.

Oui, c'est utile. (Okay, okay, I'm trying.) ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 11:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please can you answer the following question: if a player agrees to sell a propery to another player and the property is already charged to the bank does the purchaser take the property as it were free of incumberances or in its charged form? I have always assumed that it's for the vendor to discharge the liability to the bank (as would be the case in an ordinary land transaction in real life) but I can appreciate that there is a counter argument. Any views?

Dr Spam (MD) 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The property passes to the new owner encumbered by the mortgage. From the rules: "the owner may sell [a] mortgaged property to another player at any agreed price. If you are the new owner, you may lift the mortgage at once if you wish by paying off the mortgage plus 10% interest to the Bank. If the mortgage is not lifted at once, you must pay the Bank 10% interest when you buy the property and if you lift the mortgage later you must pay the Bank an additional 10% interest as well as the amount of the mortgage." Barnabypage 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This also applies to mortgaged properties acquired through the bankruptcy of another player. Lets say I'm playing against someone who holds two of the railroads (amongst other properties). If they go bankrupt to me, and those two railroads are mortgaged, I either owe $20 immediately to the bank for acquiring the properties, and another $220 when I unmortgage them, or I could just pay $220 up front to the bank and unmortgage both of the railroads immediately. It all depends on how much cash you have on hand. --JohnDBuell 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of introduction

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:MrBeast objected to the length of the introduction and moved a paragraph. However, that paragraph should have been rewritten to flow into the text where it was pasted, as it "felt out of place." But I wanted to point out that a three paragraph lead for an article of this length is the commonly accepted guideline. See WP:LEAD - under Length, it actually says that three-four paragraphs would be acceptable (though in practice, most editors prefer three paragraphs when the article is in Peer Review and becomes a Featured Article Candidate). So, I'm simply stating that I disagree, and there's my reason why. --JohnDBuell 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Traced back to the early 1800s?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The opening line opines that the game can be traced back to the early 1800s, but nothing (I've found) in the article substantiates that claim. We hear of Anspach and much of the early history of the game was "rediscovered" but we don't get to hear any solid history before 1903. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk)

1900s. The game did NOT exist in any recognizable form before 1903. Whomever changed it was simply being a vandal. --JohnDBuell 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's Monopoly promotions

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

McDonalds has introduced Monopoly promotion games, which is played online with game pieces obtained from specific purchases. It would be interesting to see indepth information about that included in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Normannen (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 December 2006.

The history from 2001-present is covered in McDonald's Monopoly but nothing (yet) on the 1980s/1990s versions of the promotion. The McDonald's version of the game started with stamps that had to be licked and stuck to the playing board. Recent versions use self-adhesive stickers. --JohnDBuell 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Volume of game sales

It would be nice to have some basic statistics about how many games have been sold, or how many are currently selling per year. Even limited statistics such as those for the US or UK would help. 

--Johnsl

Monopoly Documentary

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

For what it's worth, I'm currently producing and directing a documentary about the game of MONOPOLY titled "Under the Boardwalk." It will provide a comprehensive and accurate look at the history of the game and I hope it will become a source for this page in the future. We are aiming for a theatrical release in 2010. More info about it can be found at MonopolyDocumentary.com. We have already filmed interviews with Phil Orbanes, Randolph P. Barton (grandson of George S. Parker & former Pres. of Parker Brothers), Lee Bayrd (1st World Champ), Matt McNally (Defending US Champ), Leon Vandendooren (Defending US Champ), and are scheduled to also film with Jason Bunn (1985 World Champ), Antonio Zafra Fernandez (2004 World Champ), and many more. Tostie14 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. The years of development from Magie's idea to Parker Brother's acquisition between 1904 and 1935 are particularly fascinating to Wikipedians since they parallel the way that Wikipedia has developed. It'll be interesting to see how you handle it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a monopoly game that has the last copyright printing dated 1951. It has all wooden playing pieces and the box says it was made in CANADA. Is that just the box or the whole game? I did not think that it was made in CANADA. Also it is in pretty good condition so I was trying to figure out how old the game was. When did monopoly begin? JewellV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewellv (talk • contribs) 06:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly as it is currently published was first sold in 1935 by Parker Brothers. They likely would have the manufacturer/distributor for Canada as well. Tostie14 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

World Championship Dates

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Through my research, I am finding dates (more than just the years) for several of the US & World MONOPOLY Championships, such as the final day of the 2004 World Championship was on October 9th, 2004. Is this worth adding to the page where I have the info? Tostie14 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can add dates and locations for any of the listed tournaments, that'd be useful. Also, does anyone know if we can combine the US/Canada/World tournaments (and we better add UK ones before someone has a snit ;) into one table? Or add a Hide/Show link to each table? --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Anspach cannot be viewed as a reliable source the book is self published [1] and he has a strong prejudice. While sources should have a POV they shouldn't have a vested interest in facts.Tetron76 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So I presume that you think we should also remove anything published by Hasbro or with their support since they too have a strong vested interest. Unconfirmed accounts from people with a vested interest should naturally be treated with caution. However Anspach's material is just as straightforward to check as Hasbro's. The court proceedings are available online. Remember that Wikipedia provides NPOV by reporting the viewpoint of both sides in a dispute. In this case that means Hasbro's point of view and Anspach's. And what could be a more reliable source of Anspach's POV than a book which he has self-published? For this reason your citation needed tags are pointless and should be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Especially considering that certain things aren't really up for dispute: Anspach's appearance on TV, one reference was flagged as 'citation needed' but the same comment was confirmed by a second citation, already listed, by Tim Walsh, and a third one was flagged that had nothing to do with Anspach at all. I'm with Derek on this one, even though the book is more or less self published, he does acknowledge his contributors, and I find the book to be a valid source. --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and a fourth, verified by Orbanes. And not like he didn't/doesn't have a vested interest, having been a Parker Brothers VP, President of Winning Moves, which licenses games from Hasbro, and is still the Chief Judge at Monopoly tournaments. I'm sorry, but this argument is bunk. --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If Orbanes confirms something then there is an available reliable source and Orbanes should be the citation but self-published books are clearly excluded by wikipedia policy as non-RS and in this case it is not even a primary source. This is not about whether he is right or wrong but whether it counts as a source.Tetron76 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I might have accidently over tagged citations needed but it seemed less contraversial than stripping out every Anspach book reference. But a book that the author states that no one would publish because they were worried about being sued has to count as original research if used.Tetron76 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Restructure

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to clean-up the structure of this page but because a large number of small changes are needed I was worried that this would become contraversial.

The opening sentence should be something along the lines of: The game of Monopoly was first published in... although its origins can be traced back to...

The reasoning for this is that for the history of any game is when does a game count as a particular game. For Monopoly while the earlier connections are unquestionable there are definite differences to the pre-cursors and Monopoly itself so it would be best to stick to the most precise definition.

Following on from this there should be a sections :

  • Origins of the game (Starting perhaps with the uncovering of the origins)
    • Pre-cursors to monopoly (probably a better word than pre-cursor)
  • Editions
  • Legal actions
    • trademark legislation
  • competitions
  • related products

The difference is that there is duplication of material and the blurring of issues has lead to one or two points that are not relevant to the article. I think that it is probably the case that there needs to be some other articles to allow Monopoly and its history to be streamlined.Tetron76 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Monopoly

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Update (Please change as you see fit, I'm only providing the information as you've got OUTDATED AND INCORRECT INFORMATION AS TO WHO OWNS MONOPOLY!!!!!!!): Because of the lengthy court process and appeals, the legal status of Parker Brothers' trademarks on the game was not settled until the late 1970s. Ralph Anspach won a lawsuit over his game Anti-Monopoly on appeals in 1979, as the 9th District Court determined that the trademark Monopoly was generic, and therefore unenforceable. Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125599860004295449.html Also see: http://www.antimonopoly.com/original_boardgame.html

The above comment was originally posted in the article by an anonymous editor. I have moved it here where it is more appropriate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Monopoly Championships - single table

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Suggestion has been made to move the single table here and add other tournaments as new columns, and restore the multiple tables in the main article, but collapsible. --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 1973–1995 World Champions are listed in Philip Orbanes' Monopoly Companion, second edition, page 171.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l 1973–2003 US Champions are listed in Philip Orbanes's Monopoly Companion, third edition, page 169.
  3. ^ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1089543/index.htm
  4. ^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jQFHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2_0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1129%2C1809387
  5. ^ Information on the 2000 World Monopoly Championship from Mind Sports Worldwide's MindZine.
  6. ^ 2003 U.S. Tournament "Fun Facts" from hasbro.com via Internet Archive.
  7. ^ Press Release on Hasbro.com naming the 2004 World Monopoly Champion via Internet Archive.

Monopoly calculator

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The rules booklet for Winning Moves' Monopoly Card Game from 2000 advertises a calculator that could be used during regular Monopoly game play. It was apparently also a Winning Moves product that helped with some game calculations and doubled as a regular calculator. Should it be included as a licensed product? Anybody have a pic we can use? --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Monopoly Hotels?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone have a launch date for the smartphone app version of this game? I got a copy of the board game version over the weekend at Target - was this a pre-Christmas release (like Cityville Monopoly)? --JohnDBuell (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it launched for iPhone months ago, but it never came out on the Play Store. Tostie14 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek is listing 2013, so that's the date I'm going with. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Monopoly Live?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone have any idea what happened to this edition? It was given a debut at the 2011 New York Toy Fair and supposed to come out that autumn. There are photos of it everywhere if you use Google Image Search, and an ad/video or two, but no actual games?! --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Collector and World of Monopoly website editor Matthew Horton has told me that he is aware of people owning copies of this game, and is trying to get more details. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
He got pictures from a collector, I think in Australia, so I'm going to wait until he posts them to link to the release, though I can quote the February 2011 press releases still on the web. I'd really like to know why this one seemed to only be released in Australasia.... --JohnDBuell (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

--- I believe the negative press around Live during the NY Toy Fair that year doomed its release in the US, and they ended up only releasing it in Australia and possibly one other country (not sure which) Tostie14 (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

First video game

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"In 1989, the first of many video game and computer game editions was published" is untrue. The first official computer versions were released in 1985 (here's a 1985 review, if you need proof of the date), while the unauthorised (but identical) Automonopoli was released in 1983. Mogism (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the board game Monopoly. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The progenitor of The Landlord's Game

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For your consideration, this article proposes a pre-history of The Landlord's Game.

  • Winkelman, Philip M. (September 2016). "Board to Page to Board: Native American Antecedents of Two Proprietary Board Games". Board Game Studies Journal. 10 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1515/bgs-2016-0002. ISSN 2183-3311.

For reasons which I expect are obvious, I will not be adding this information to the article myself. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

box color

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The original parts box is described as black, but the photo shows it as blue. I have one right in front of me, and it is definitely blue. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the board game Monopoly. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Monopoly/Archive_2&oldid=1136797296"