Talk:Monopoly (game)/Archive 3

Singular they

Currently the article includes these two sentences:

When a player lands on Free Parking, they may take the money. Another rule is that if a player lands directly on Go, they collect double the amount, or $400, instead of $200.

108.11.158.83 edited this to say:

When players land on Free Parking, they may take the money. Another rule is that if players land directly on Go, they collect double the amount, or $400, instead of $200.

SQGibbon reverted the edit, with the comment "Reverted good faith edits by 108.11.158.83 (talk): Previous version was fine -- Wikipedia allows the singular they. (TW)". I restored it, saying "Undid revision 813435452 by SQGibbon (talk) Per singular they it's best to avoid it in formal writing". SQGobbin re-reverted, with the comment "Undid revision 813632084 by Strawberry4Ever (talk) You linked to an article not to a guideline or policy. There appears to be no consensus on the topic so no reason to change original".

What's the consensus here? My preference is for 108.11.158.83's version. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Vocabulary, under the subheading "Contested vocabulary", says Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality, that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted [my emphasis]. See List of English words with disputed usage ... List of English words with disputed usage#T, entry for "they", says The "singular they" has been making inroads into formal writing; for example, it was adopted by the Washington Post in 2015 as permissible as a last resort [my emphasis], though it remains substandard according to most style guides. 108.11.158.83's edit does not strain for formality, and is perfectly natural. Why should we deliberately use contested vocabulary? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus on Wikipedia whether the singular they is acceptable or not. The article you linked to about "disputed usage" does not actually list any sources supporting the claim that it is a disputed use (though that's not my main argument as I'm positive one can find style guides to support that claim). In general we shouldn't rely on Wikipedia articles to help us determine issues of style as those are matters of community consensus. Already we mix American style double quotes with British style logical quotations, a style fusion not supported by an major style guide I'm aware of. Community consensus on style should always trump what Wiki articles state on the subject.

Worth considering is the guideline Retaining existing styles. The relevant bit: "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.'" It seems to me that there's plenty of reason to accept the singular they as an acceptable style which means changing from it is generally not supported without a good reason.

Ultimately the issue surrounding the singular they should not be decided by us in this talk page as it is something that comes up all over Wikipedia and as more and more style guides find its use acceptable in more and more contexts it is an evolving issue. If you wish to bring this up at WT:MOS and have it settled once and for all then you should do so though I find it highly unlikely that it will be settled once and for all.

So here's what my argument comes down to. We preserve acceptable stylistic choices unless there's a compelling reason to change them. Wikipedia does not have a consensus view on the singular they. In the article on the singular they a number of style guides do support its use in all contexts. Calling it "disputed" is not without merit but as a matter of degrees it is far less disputed than, say, ain't. None of those same style guides would support the use of ain't while supporting the use of the singular they.

If you can build a consensus to change it in this instance then fine. If you can't then the original version that has been there for a while (though I haven't verified this by looking through the history) would seem to me to be acceptable.

Oh, and here is a recent discussion on the issue. It's complicated an ongoing. SQGibbon (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I have a lot of reading to do! Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've finished reading the discussion. It's discouraging because having just gone through a long debate last month about "singular they", editors of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style probably aren't going to be eager to talk about it again. My feeling is that, yes, we should use gender inclusive language rather than using "he" as a pronoun referring to both men and women, and excessive use of "he or she" can be awkward, but if there is a way to rewrite a sentence to avoid using "singular they" we should do so. As quoted from Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (1998), Where [it] can be avoided, avoid it. Where it can't be avoided, resort to it cautiously, because some speakers (especially speakers of AmE) may doubt your literacy.... In this case, I don't see a good reason not to rewrite the sentence to avoid using "singular they". Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be a community-wide Request for Comment on the thing in order to get it added into the MOS. It's not something that should be decided by a handful of editors in a fairly obscure Talk page who just happened to show up at the right time. This really needs wide exposure. In the meantime, if you can build a consensus for changing this then fine. My main argument is that we shouldn't go around changing things just because we prefer one style to the other as the original IP did (and against the guideline I quoted above). I would feel the same way if someone changed a he or she to they if there wasn't some compelling reason for it. While support for the singular they isn't as strong as for he or she it's also becoming more and more acceptable in all contexts. Also, the Garner you quote is from 1998, here is a more up-to-date opinion from him that is far more accepting: "Speakers of American English resist this development more than speakers of British English, in which the indeterminate “they” is already more or less standard. That it sets many literate Americans’ teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem." Also, also, Garner is a lawyer and not a language expert. So yeah, it can be rewritten to avoid this particular controversy but I see no reason that it needs to be. SQGibbon (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the use of singular they

EDITORS OPPOSE THE PROPOSED REWORDING. THERE IS NO PREJUDICE AGAINST A NEW RFC TO DISCUSS ANOTHER PROPOSED REWORDING AND A NEW RFC TO DISCUSS THE USE OF THE SINGULAR THEY IN THIS ARTICLE:

The consensus is against changing the text to:

When players land on Free Parking, they may take the money. Another rule is that if players land directly on Go, they collect double the amount, or $400, instead of $200.

Editors noted that the proposed text is a worse wording because it uses a plural subject instead of a singular subject. Editors noted that this is inaccurate because multiple players will not be landing on free parking simultaneously.

Opponents of the change argued that the singular they is an acceptable formulation in English so should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR. Supporters of the change argued that the singular they is confusing and does not read smoothly.

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) noted, "it's not ideal, because many readers object to it, and when the reader mentally rebels against the material, they are not absorbing it but judging it, and thus we are not doing our job well in presenting the material to them".

Editors discussed alternatives to the current wording and the proposed wording that would avoid the use of the singular they and maintain a singular subject. A suggestion from Gapfall (talk · contribs) that was later expanded upon by Triptothecottage (talk · contribs) was:

A player landing on Free Parking may immediately take the money. Another rule is that a player landing directly on Go may collect double the usual amount: $400 instead of $200.

This wording did not achieve consensus owing to a lack of discussion. There is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss it.

Another issue raised was whether the article should avoid the use of the singular they. It is difficult to judge a consensus on that subject because many editors focused more on the specific proposed wording change here so I will not assess the consensus on that topic. There is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss it specifically.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I'm requesting comments on the proposed edits discussed above in the "Singular they" section. Currently the article includes these two sentences:

When a player lands on Free Parking, they may take the money. Another rule is that if a player lands directly on Go, they collect double the amount, or $400, instead of $200.

The proposal is to change this to:

When players land on Free Parking, they may take the money. Another rule is that if players land directly on Go, they collect double the amount, or $400, instead of $200.

As I said in the previous section, I think the use of "singular they" should be avoided if possible by rewriting sentences, where this can be done in a way that is gender-neutral and isn't awkward. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as the creator of the RfC. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Singular they has a long and established history in the English language and is a perfectly acceptable way of making something gender-neutral. Not only that, but in the particular example given, it makes more sense to speak about a singular player anyway – players will not be landing on free parking simultaneously. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is a sentence that could be formatted either way and still make sense, so why make it more confusing by mixing a singular and non-singular word. The singular "they" can be used, but if it can be avoided for clarity, what not? Natureium (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral on the merits, strongest possible oppose on making any changes. Singular they is a perfectly acceptable formulation in English, and there is no need to change it. If the article had already been written as "if players land directly on Go, they collect", then I would oppose changing that. However, per WP:ENGVAR, since there is no compelling reason to change, we shouldn't, since "if a player lands directly on Go, they collect" is perfectly cromulent. --Jayron32 16:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The singular they is well-established as a standard and grammatical feature of English and more and more style guides are coming around to accept it. Since it was fine in the first place there is no need to change it as per WP:ENGVAR. And that last point is key as we don't want to waste time changing articles based on stylistic preferences and then arguing about it forever. SQGibbon (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Multiple players cannot land on Free Parking simultaneously. Thus, the subject of the sentence should be a single person. I'm totally fine with using they as a pronoun for a person of undefined gender, and to avoid overuse of solely masculine pronouns. Tostie14 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, per Tostie14's logical point. However, support rewriting some other way if possible without it being awkward. That can take considerable crafting, but we do it at pool, billiards, and snooker articles all the time. Singular they is permissible, but it's not ideal, because many readers object to it, and when the reader mentally rebels against the material, they are not absorbing it but judging it, and thus we are not doing our job well in presenting the material to them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as ambiguous, could be read as the players splitting the money. Trivial to rewrite as "A player landing on Free Parking may take the money." and so on. --Gapfall (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: we should avoid using the singular 'they' as much as possible; this is a time where we can see a clear alternative which would—actually—be more appropriate than what is present currently. –Sb2001 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposed, though I think better opportunities for phrasing should be explored in the discussion below. The singular they varies with dialect, does not read smoothly, and should therefore be avoided in this simple case in order to set precedent elsewhere. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In response to Tostie14's Deacon Vorbis's point that multiple players cannot land on Free Parking simultaneously, perhaps a better rewrite would be: "Players who land on Free Parking may take the money. Another rule is that players who land directly on Go collect double the amount: $400 instead of $200." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This is worse, because now it doesn't say that it has to happen when the player lands there, so there's some ambiguity as to if they (see what I did there?) must take the money now or if they can wait and take it in the future. That's fixable, but it still makes more sense to talk about a singular player here anyway. And it's probably worth pointing out if you're having this much trouble coming up with a suitable rewrite, then the original was probably better. (I'm not sure if I should be offended that someone else has twice now gotten credit for pointing out the simultaneity issue, even though I brought it up first .) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could add a clarifying statement such as "When players take money from the bank they must do so immediately", but even that causes a problem because it seems to be saying that if a player forgets to take money on his or her turn it's too late to collect it later, which isn't necessarily true. It seems that there's something wrong with every possible wording: loss of precision, or the repetitive use of "he or she", or an invented word like "s/he", or convoluted syntax, or the politically incorrect use of "he" to refer to both male and female players, or the use of "singular they". It's not clear to me that "singular they" is the least bad alternative, but maybe it's the way forward. Future generations may see "singular they" as a perfectly natural part of the language, just as we see no problem with using "you" as both a singular and plural pronoun. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What about: "A player landing on Free Parking may immediately take the money. Another rule is that a player landing directly on Go may collect double the usual amount: $400 instead of $200." Triptothecottage (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would support that. It's in line with Gapfall's suggestion in the Survey section. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the !votes so far, it looks like three people support the proposed change, two support changing the article to avoid using "singular they" but with different wording than proposed in the RfC, and four oppose it for various reasons, either because they don't like the proposed wording or because they feel that the existing style of the article shouldn't be changed. There appears to be a small majority in favor of changing the article to avoid the use of "singular they". Is that enough for a close or should we try to get more people to comment on this?

By the way, "singular they" is used in several other places in the article, and "he" is used in one sentence. If there had been a consensus in favor of the use of "singular they" I was going to go along with the majority and edit the article to change "he" to "they". As it is, I'm going to wait for a final decision on this RfC before taking action, but I won't object if someone else makes the edit. If the consensus is to avoid the use of "singular they" I'll edit the article accordingly. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

By my count, there are three for changing it per the Rfc, one to rewrite it and not use singular they, and five who oppose any change. Tostie14 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's how I counted the !votes:

Support as written: Strawberry4Ever, Natureim. Sb2001.

Support with rewrite: SMcCandish, Gapfall.

Oppose: Deacon Vorbois, Jayron32, SQGibbon, Totsie14.

Thus, it's 5-4 in favor of avoiding the use of "singular they". Of course, this is a !vote, not a vote, so it's not just a question of counting the number of people for and against. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Make that 6-4 in favor of avoiding the use of "singular they", including Triptothecottage on the "avoid" side. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monopoly (game). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104004036/http://boardgames.about.com/od/monopolynews/a/sack_of_money.htm to http://boardgames.about.com/od/monopolynews/a/sack_of_money.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pandora.dyndns.biz/monopoly/simulator.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Fortnite Monopoly

Not notable and WP:TOOSOON on it's own. » Shadowowl | talk 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to merge because there is nothing that could be merged. I have sent the article to Draft:Fortnite Monopoly and created a redirect to direct readers until the individual edition is notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tostie14 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

February 6th as Release Date of Monopoly

I'm reviving this topic as it was archived before it was resolved. Tostie14 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Pulled from Archive 2

7th February Right at the moment?

I’m researching a article about the 7th February: and WAS going to mention that, according to the page, as it currently stands, Monopoly was invented on 7th Feb, 1935. However, according to the article, itself? The game was first published on the sixth February, 1935. I’ve not moved the article, as yet: as I wasn’t sure what was the correct date. Cuddy2977 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone added "February 6th" as a publication date. It doesn't really have any significance to the game. If you look through the page, you'll see it was invented well before 1935. The only significant dates around there that are typically used are the patent granted date (Dec 31, 1935) and the patent submission date (Aug 31, 1935) for Darrow's patent (which came after both of Magie's patents). I suggest that we undo this edit made back on Sep 25 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopoly_(game)&diff=741042794&oldid=739398926) that was unsourced, and then that would resolve the issue for your article as this date isn't important. Tostie14 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In Phil Orbanes' book, "Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game & How It Got That Way," he writes on page 66 that Parker Bros. President Robert Barton met with Charles Darrow on March 18, 1935 to acquire the rights to the game (the deal was then finalized the next dayon March 19th). Darrow began selling the game in 1933, so Feb 6, 1935 seemingly has no place being listed as the release date. Tostie14 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded to this talk discussion in over a year about the actual day in 1935 Parker Brothers began selling the game, I'm going to remove Feb 6th from the infobox. Tostie14 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Token table

Wouldn't the token table work better in a "timeline" format, such as used for cast in TV series or band membership?--MCBastos (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would work and look better. Spshu (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

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

• BoardGamePatentMagie.png
• DarrowPage1.png
• Monopoly board on white bg.jpg

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

Monopoly in popular media

Twice Monopoly has been used in popular media: 1} Episide of Hawaii Five _o "Over fifty? Steal" Macgarret must out smart a crook who uses Monoply cards in crimes {The TV show had to get permission form Monolpy to use cards] 2} On WKRP on Cincinnati Herb Tarlec is seen playing a monolopy game with Jenifer and Bailly Quarters --and he goes bankrupt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.128 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"GTJ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GTJ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Get Out of Jail Free" Card after third failed doubles?

This article states (with my added emphasis), "Failing to roll doubles for three consecutive turns requires the player to either pay the $50 fine or use a Get Out of Jail Free card," in other words, using the card is still an option after the third failed doubles in order to avoid paying the $50 fine. However, reading official rules online ( https://www.fgbradleys.com/rules/Monopoly%20Millennium%20Edition.pdf ), I don't get a clear indication that the fine may be avoided after the third failed doubles with the Card, as it is simply stated (with its own emphasis), "If you do not throw doubles by your third turn, you must pay the $50 fine." Using the Card at this point is not specifically addressed, but the emphatic "must" seems to be at least a vague implication that there is no other option, i.e. not the Card. Can this matter be cleared up, please? 2601:545:8201:6290:9180:C2FD:CEA:288 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Orbanes, a former employee of Parker Brothers and Hasbro, has served as the Chief Judge for the US & World Monopoly Championships since the 1970s. His official rule that is used in these tournaments is that the Get out of Jail Free card may be used in place of paying $50 to the bank to get out of jail at any time you could pay cash to the bank, including after a third roll. Thus, this article is correct in regards to tournament play. However, the current version of the home rules contradict this. Thus, it would be correct to say that in some editions or in tournament play, the GoJF card may be used after the third roll. Tostie14 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That was an excellent explanation; thank you!! (Sorry, my IP address has changed, as it does every few days. I am indeed the one who asked.) If I may trouble you further with a follow-up question(s), if you're in jail, and on any attempt to roll doubles that fails, you then decide to use your GOoJF Card, can you still have that turn, or must you wait till your next turn to move? If you can go at that point, would that non-double roll be your move (I presume it would be)? Sorry if I seem to be "discussing the subject", rather than the article, but the answers could have a bearing on the content of the article (as it supposedly "includes the rules"), so I feel it's reasonable to inquire.2601:545:8201:6290:D5DD:476B:E787:3EAD (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The card can be used in place of the $50. That means that if you paid $50 after you rolled for one of your turns, you wouldn't get to immediately go again. The same would apply to use of the card. The only time in which you move the amount shown on the die regardless of whether or not you rolled doubles is your third turn. And this also doesn't change the fact that if you roll doubles to get out of jail, your turn is over once you move the amount shown. You don't get a second roll/reroll after rolling doubles to get out of jail. Tostie14 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, again! 2601:545:8201:6290:D5DD:476B:E787:3EAD (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Junior Monopoly

Should this article point out there is a junior version of Monopoly where the players buy fairground attractions rather than properties? Vorbee (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Has it received any significant coverage? DonIago (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Trading

Was wondering if there should be a sub-section of strategies for trading? It's included in many of the online games and is a useful strategy to obtain all the properties of the a specific color set. Akazi19 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAMEGUIDE. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Tokens

I have a 1954 edition that only has colored wood token playing pieces.

How come no mention of these?

Just curious. 2600:8800:C89:EA00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You could be WP:BOLD and add information about them, assuming you have a source that discusses them. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure http://monopoly.cdbpdx.com/ counts as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, but it does seem to have some info on the series that includes your edition, and mentions wooden pieces. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

My film Under the Boardwalk includes footage of the wooden tokens and is used as a source elsewhere on the page. 14:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Graphic Design and Rhetoric

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mickmack5801 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Caroljmm (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sparks Gaming the System

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ehernandez568 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ktapia-becerril (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Deluxe Editions

What year did they stop making wooden hotels 2600:4040:E085:2000:1039:C95C:F16:FBA5 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Doubts about “Anti-Monopoly” paragraphs

PBS’s American Experience recently aired a description of the Anspach vs. Parker Brothers litigation considerably different from the one here. 伟思礼 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)