Talk:Mornington Crescent (game)/Archive 2

Another cultural ref

There's an episode of Family Guy when there's a stereotypical english guy at a party and he's talking about bicycles and how funny welsh people or scots are or something. Everyone finds him extremely dull and he then asks 'anyone for a game of mornington crescent?' or something to that effect.. That's the first time I'd ever heard it mentioned as a game despite the fact that I regularly pass the station on my commute on the northern line. Being english I found it funny nonetheless as it does capture that english facetiousness quite well. It's one of my new favourite sayings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.38.0 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This article needs an 'example of play'

I have read this article fully, and I have yet to understand how this game is played. It is simply not clear from the way it is written, it seems to be written for people who already know how the game is played. I understand that the rules are obscure and not fully available, but would it not be possible with an example of game play for the sake of the readers like me who have not heard about the game? It's like assuming everyone has played chess. --Svip^pong 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent is not actually a game at all, it is a long running joke about complicated games from a comedy radio show. I have edited the article to clear up this confusion. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've been a bit heavy-handed there - you replaced "game" with "joke" so many times that it began to sound like Mornington Crescent was something that people simply joked about, rather than actually pretending to play it as part of the joke. I've changed some of the alterations back. (And it probably wouldn't hurt to have a quote from an ISIHAC game, to give an example of what the game sounds like when it's played out, and why it might be funny.) --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. I used joke instead of "sketch" or "skit" because I'm not sure if those would be quite the right words to refer to ISIHAC's rounds, although that's what they bear the closest resemblance to. I think as long as the intro is clear about the nature of the thing (game or no) then it's ok; although an example might help too. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is outrageous POV editorialising which does not reflect the published sources. The published sources overwhelmingly do not describe the game as a 'joke' or a 'parody'. The article no longer reflects published sources in the way that wikipedia articles are meant to. We must reflect what the published sources say, not a POV, even if that POV seems blatantly obvious. Riversider (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition of a game

Let's start getting things clear. This is the definition of a game from Your Dictionary.com :

game1 definition game (gām)

noun

any form of play or way of playing; amusement; recreation; sport; frolic; play"

Mornington Crescent meets each of these points, so it is not a 'parody of a game' but a game which parodies other games, nor is it a 'joke' game, but a game which uses humour as it's main skill.

It is also not 'a game which has no rules'. There are several very simple rules which can be worked out by any listener, these are rules around what are acceptable moves (generally London Underground Stations), turn taking, to be entertaining and witty in your play, a very clear rule on how to win, and a strong rule not to 'win' too early, as this conflicts with the rule which requires players to be entertaining, there's also a rule about not 'giving the game away' - I could put all these rules into the article, but to do so would be original research. Editors may not like the game, or the possible invention of some of the more complex 'rules' and obscure gaming terms, but this is no reason to go against what the published sources on the topic say. I'd ask editors to re-read what was a featured article on the Museum of Bad Art, to see how in a fairly analogous situation, editors have stayed disciplined and stuck to reflecting the balance of published sources, rather than inflicting the oversimplified POV that 'the whole thing is a joke' on the article. Riversider (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't be absurd. First of all, the definition of "game" is an exceedingly complex and involved one, but none of those from formal sociological contexts (not general reference works such as dictionaries), allow for a running joke on a radio show to be described as a proper game. You also seem to be perpetuating the joke here by pretending there are rules, that it is anything other than a comedy routine. It is no more a game than who's on first is a depiction of a genuine discussion on baseball positions.

A further investigation of your history shows edits dating back to 2008 on other pages attempting to depict MC as a real game. What's with the obsession over this bizarre claim? Maybe you don't get the joke?

As for the published sources, there is a degree of difficulty here, I'll admit. Almost all of the sources seem to perpetuate the joke that the game is real, and that rules exist. It all gets a bit post-modern and self-referential, understandable considering the nature of the topic as a kind of in-joke or meme. I think in cases like this, the general principle of WP:IGNORE should apply to allow us to depict the truth we all know is behind the sources. I know it's a shame to let the truth of the joke out, but that's just going to have to be sacrificed for the accuracy and readability of the article for general users who aren't familiar with the topic and will be confused (for example, the user I replied to earlier). --129.11.12.201 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not being absurd at all. If you listen to the game you can tell that the players are clearly enjoying themselves, one of the key aspects of any game. They are amusing themselves, deriving enjoyment, sporting, frolicking and playing. The audience enjoy this too, so in a sense are participants in the game, especially if they are 'in' on the joke. There are enough rules so that others can recreate the game, and play it for themselves, and there is clear evidence that people are doing this in large numbers, and deriving enjoyment from it, I have done so myself - so it is far more than 'a comedy routine'. Perhaps there is a cultural element here, as this game, although it appears to have a 'winner' is played in a non-competitive way (though the players make great efforts to appear to be competing intensely), for mutual enjoyment. This type of game is not readily understood by people who come from more competitive culture, where every game has winners and losers, where there are leagues, statistics and intense competition - possibly part of the enjoyment of the game is to make fun of people with such competitive attitudes, and such 'obsession' with the minutiae of complex rulebooks. competition is NOT a defining characteristic of a game, there is a subset of games which are competitive. The other key point is that we must reflect the balance of published sources. My edits have been to correct imbalanced edits, and selective quotations which have not fully reflected the sources cited, which overwhelmingly show that MC is a game with some (unclear) rules. You say that there are formal sociological texts with different definitions of 'game' from the ones contained in everyday dictionaries. Please help the discussion by quoting these definitions, so we can explore whether MC does or does not meet these 'sociological' definitions, rather than 'merely' those contained in the dictionaries on everyone's shelves.Riversider (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At least you admit it's a joke! But you still seem to insist there are rules - there are not in fact clear rules, and no source I have seen lays out the rules for MC as it appears on the radio show. All the transcripts I've read, and the few times I've heard the show itself, suggest it is nothing more than a silly comedy routine. The absence of these rules, as well as the absence of any real competition (as you yourself admit), is what means it does not meet the definition of game as given by most sociology and ludology sources (see the articles on game and game studies for that kind of information, which is much too complex to go into here).

As an aside, I'm confused by what you mean about there being a cultural element. I'm English, as I assume you are, and I don't think there's anything unique about our culture that means we are able to play "games" without being competitive. There's no need to turn this into some kind of exercise in cultural chauvinism.

Looking at your editing history you seem to have taken this entire issue very seriously for a number of years, so I'm not going to push this further. I've honestly had enough of ludicrous arguments on Wikipedia. But can we perhaps reach a compromise, at least, to avoid confusion for the uninitiated? Here's a draft for an intro that I hope we can both agree on, which explains the nature of MC a little better than the present one (I've also wikified it):

Mornington Crescent is a game featured in the BBC Radio 4 comedy panel game I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue which satirises complicated strategy games, particularly the obscure jargon involved in such games as contract bridge or chess.

The game consists of each panellist in turn announcing a landmark or street, most often a tube station on the London Underground system. The winner is the first player to announce "Mornington Crescent", a station on the Northern Line. Interspersed with these turns is humorous discussion amongst the panellists and host regarding the rules and legality of each move, as well as the strategy the panellist is utilising. Much of the humour derives from the fact that although various supposed rules and strategies are invoked and argued, these are never fully explained, creating the illusion of a complex and strategic game.

the wording might be a little awkward, feel free to tinker. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy with 95% of that, it's very well worded, and most of it would be an improvement, though certain words like 'supposed' and 'illusion' would be classed as original research, as they are not reflected in the literature on the subject. [WP:NOR]. We need to be careful to stick faithfully to what published sources tell us, rather than inflicting our own POV on the topic. BTW, I've just looked at the Game article and would suggest that MC stands up well to most, if not all the sociological and philosophical definitions listed there. I would still assert that competition is not a defining characteristic of a game, and that there are over-competitive and rule-obsessed individuals in every culture.Riversider (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have already stated and you well know, most of the sources on this subject that would otherwise be reliable are unfortunately compromised by the fact that they perpetuate the joke itself. This page explains the situation pretty well: [1]. Now, while I fully support the exclusive use of reliable sources for the main body of text, in the spirit of WP:IGNORE I propose we make clear the nature of the game in the intro to make this article as informative and helpful as it can be for those not familiar with the in-joke. As I've said before, it's a shame to "break character" as it were and reveal the truth, but we have to be as clear as possible. A joke can really only go so far before it ceases to be amusing. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that on no other page in Wikipedia would a webpage published by someone called 'Ciphergoth' be accepted as an authoritative source. The only reason it is being credited here with any kind of reliability is because it is one of an absolutely tiny number of pages that support the POV you are pushing, under the mistaken belief that what you believe to be 'truth' trumps what is 'verifiable' under wikipedia rules - that way lies anarchy. Right at the heart of wikipedia is the instruction to accurately reflect the balance of authoritative published sources. Ciphergoth is clearly mistaken where he says that the game has no rules. If this were so, it would be impossible for people to recreate the game in a recognisable way. If I came across a group of people playing Mornington Crescent, I would within a couple of seconds have worked out exactly what game they were playing, because it does have rules and parameters that govern how it is played. I keep referring you to the article on the Museum of Bad Art, this was made a featured article, right at the front page of WP, because it is widely seen as one of the very best articles on Wikipedia. Personally I believe the museum of bad art to be 'merely' a kind of post modern self-referential joke. I do not alter the article, because despite the fact that this seems blatantly obvious to me, I cannot find any authoritative published sources to back up this POV. Wikipedia must follow published articles, not lead them. Learning, and properly understanding this central guiding principle of WP will help any editor. Riversider (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can suggest a way forward - if this were an article about particle physics, and you were an expert on particle physics who could see from your own knowledge that the article missed out some key information about the subject because nobody had published anything in that area, you would not be expected to add it to the article anyway, as this would constitute original research. What you would be encouraged to do, would be to write an article yourself, and to get it published in an authoritative source. You would then hope that another WP editor would pick up this new source and say 'I must add this crucial information to the article'. I'd suggest a similar procedure here - a short article on Mornington Crescent, published in the Journal of Media Studies would suffice. Riversider (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you appear to be mistaken. I was certainly not advocating that website as a reliable source, just as something that illustrates and explains the situation. Please respond to my original suggestion - that the central guiding principle of Wikipedia is in fact to add to the understanding of those who read it, and in this case, as we have already seen, those who read this particular article are liable to be confused. To reiterate: In the spirit of WP:IGNORE I propose we make clear the nature of the game in the intro to make this article as informative and helpful as it can be for those not familiar with the in-joke. The revised/expanded intro I have proposed does this. So far I have seen nothing from you except for an hubristic adherence to an otherwise invaluable policy that, in this exceptional case, unfortunately serves to obfuscate rather than elucidate. I can only assume you are doing so out of a misguided desire to perpetuate the in-joke. As I've said before, it's a shame to "break character" as it were and reveal the truth, but we have to be as clear as possible. A joke can really only go so far before it ceases to be amusing. To make perfectly clear, so we know there is no mistake: The inclusion of the two words "supposed" and "illusion" are all that are needed, an incredibly tiny move that will turn this article into something only those familiar with the subject will fully understand to an actual encyclopaedia article that a general audience will be able to appreciate. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Then get the words 'supposed' and 'illusion' published in relation to Mornington Crescent in an authoritative source (I was joking about the Journal of Media Studies, the TV page of the Guardian would do), and we can then amend the article. Without authoritative sources we can have no way of verifying what the article says, and we set a very dangerous precedent for other articles. Edits that are not backed up by verifiable sources are pure POV, totally against the letter and the spirit of WP guidelines, and must be eradicated, unless those sources can be found. The 'central guiding principle' of Wikipedia is to reflect the sum of recorded human knowledge, but NOT to add to it.Riversider (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As a result of our above discussion, I have created a revised version of the introduction using reliable published sources. Thank you for your insistence on sourcing content, I think we can both agree the article is much stronger for following these guidelines. Nice to see the collaborative system work for once : ) --129.11.12.201 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those certainly look like authoritative sources. Research always pays off. Riversider (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --McGeddon (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear!

As a Londoner (Born Edgware) and a stout champion of Radio 4 and avid fan of "I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue" I have to wonder at what Humph & The Lovely Samantha would make of all this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.218.73 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Humph would have been delighted with the irony of all these earnest people debating the philosophy of games and how it applies to Mornington Crescent. Bluewave (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Metro Think Tank question 1, 30 June 05

Interestingly, this question in the Metro (page 48) seems remarkably similar to part of the Mornington Crescent (game)#Real rules section:

About 15 years ago, Roger Heyworth of Gibson's Games suggested the idea of selling a game consisting of a box that was empty save for a leaflet promoting a fan club for players of the game. Reputedly devised by comedian John Junkin and still played to this day, can you guess which famous game this is?

Compared to the original:

In the late 1980s Roger Heyworth, a director of Gibson's Games mooted the idea of publishing a Mornington Crescent game consisting of an empty box containing a flier promoting a club for aficionados.

I don't have a problem with this by the way! NickF 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Nice to see they've employed somebody to change the words a bit more (compare the Metro's obituary of John Peel and the Wikipedia articles on e.g. John Peel, Billy Bragg etc). Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

Think Tank is set by David J. Bodycombe, who, according to his page, "runs the UKGameshows website, a wiki-based site cataloguing UK television gameshows". NickF 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Fact in question

Another user has deleted this paragraph and claims it is untrue:

The Mornington Crescent tube station is on London's Northern Line between Euston and Camden Town on the Charing Cross Branch. However, if you travel between the same two stations on the City Branch, the station simply isn't there. Now you see it, now you don't. The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.

The map seems to support the statement. Can anyone offer first-hand knowledge here?

Paul 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Googling for history of the station, I found this excellent page describing the history of the Underground map. (Haven't checked whether this is linked to from the approp. WP article yet...!) The two lines between Euston and Camden Town ARE in separate tunnels that are far from parallel, as the two lines are at right-angles at Euston (first shown on the 1924 map), having been constructed as separate entities.

On the web page mentioned, the section describing the 1936 map (the second by Harry Beck), highlights the 'problem' concerning Mornington Crescent station. The following extract notes one of the many changes introduced from the previous issue of the map:

– Euston now clearly shows the two branches of the Mordon-Edgeware Line interchanging but not looking like they merge. Consequently the Charing Cross branch with Mornington Crescent is shown to the west of the Bank branch, whereas before (and in reality) the branches were the other way round. *See note below.

* Note by [webmaster]: - This... ...has always been a confusing part of the line for travellers and Mornington Crescent (MC) is still shown, to this day, to the West whereas geographically... ...it is situated to the East side of the Bank Branch. To add to the complication for those wanting to get to MC, there is a platform for each of the two Northern branches at Camden Town, but southbound trains can depart from either platform toward either Charing Cross (& MC) or Bank. The map in 1941, depicts the line arrangement more accurately but shows the junctions to the North of the station when they are really to the South.

Perhaps this was why MC was adopted as the destination for the, even more confusing, Radio 4 strategy game of the same name ;-) NB. The rules of this game and an opportunity to play can be found through a link on the home page.

(I have copy-edited the extract slightly, and sections marked '... ...' have been deleted since they make no sense away from the original page. No significant text was removed.)

From the disputed paragraph we should certainly delete the comment "The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.", as this doesn't really make any sense. However it would be quite reasonable to create a factual paragraph that describes the problem for travellers at Camden Town, since this is a very sensible reason for MC being chosen - it would not even be necessary to say that this WAS the reason, as that would lead to requests for citations! (Another reason for the choice is that the name contains five syllables and is thus quite distinctive.)

EdJogg 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the fact has no connection to the game, though, it shouldn't be here, it should be in the Mornington Crescent tube station article. --McGeddon 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's phrase "some trains pass through without stopping" is unhelpful and probably false. The relevant fact is that some Northern Line trains (those via Bank) travel between Euston and Camden Town by a route which bypasses Mornington Crescent. Certes (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was true when the game was invented though. Until the station re-opened after its 1992-1998 closure, it was closed at weekends. And until just 12 years before the game was devised, even on weekdays Edgware Branch trains skipped the station. So in the mind of occasional tube travellers, the effect was that it seemed to be a random occurrence that a train actually stopped at Mornington Crescent. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference numbering problem

Having just added a reference to the "Morningside Cresent" episode, I noticed that the reference numbers do not match. In the main body, the newly added reference is [9] (as of 30/06/2010, 10:10BST), but the footnote is numbered "8" (however, clicking the "[9]" takes you to, and highlights, the correct footnote). --Cthrag Yaska (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The numbering looks fine from here, I'm seeing "(where it was changed to being Morningside Crescent)[9]." in the article, and the footnote is numbered 9 in the References section. --McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my old version of Firefox is the problem, misnumbering the <li>..</li> elements in the References section. A later version of FF and IE both display correctly.Cthrag Yaska (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Underground, Overground

The article states "Over time the destinations named by the panellists expanded beyond the Underground." AIUI it's the other way round. On the first ever game on 22 Aug 1978, the moves were equally split between streets and Underground stations: Neasden High Street, Goodge Street, Cromwell Road, Dollis Hill, Strand, and Mornington Crescent. (BTW Neasden High Street doesn't actually exist in the real world, which is strangely appropriate for the first ever move in this parody game!) It's only in the recent Jon Naismith era of ISIHAC that the game has concentrated mostly on the Underground, ignoring the streets above. --P Ingerson (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Chaim Levitz

I can find no evidence for the existence of this person. I propose to delete the sentence about him if nothing is provided within the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Shaftesbury Avenue predecessor

I've just reverted the claim that the game was invented in a pub in 1970, by some actors who had no apparent connection to ISIHAC. This is only sourced to some letters to the editor in the Guardian newspaper (which I assume fall under WP:USERGENERATED) - I suspect we shouldn't quote a user-generated source for as bold a claim as "Bunny May says that Geoffrey Perkins and Humphrey Lyttleton are wrong, and he invented the game in 1970", as per WP:SELFSOURCE this is both self-serving and makes claims about third parties. If there are any stronger sources out there then it'd be great to track the true history of Mornington Crescent, but I don't feel that this source is, by itself, enough to support "game claims to have been invented by actors in 1970". --McGeddon (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it really?

An actual game, or an improv routine involving appearing to play a game with non-obvious rules? --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an actual game. Lovingboth (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a fake parlour game. It is a game in that it is play-acting. Mezigue (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's probably more than a board game rather than a parlour game. There was a certain time where the rules said the first move could be "Mornington Crescent". So logically this would suggest every other time you can't play MC on first round. But who knows...? Slightnostalgia (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there was such a time that the opening move could be MC itself. But Froggatt's rule (1932, Camberwell) as much as it might be occasionally overlooked in the 21st century, states that, in common with visits to "real" stations on the "real" tube, it is the journey, not the destination, that is the point.Twistlethrop (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Facebook App?

This doesn't seem to exist. Unless FaceBollox is playing up again? SmokeyTheCat 03:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it IS there. Perhaps you searched for it on the diagonal, while in Huff. Pollythewasp (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

In the spirit of the game itself and as a wonderful Wikipedia easter egg I would like to propose modifying this article to maintain the fiction that Mornington Crescent is a real game. I think any damage to Wikipedia's factual veracity would be excusable in this rather singular case. --Andybak (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! I bet there are many who would dissent, and claim that Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and japes, but, frankly, if anybody falls for it, they shouldn't really be allowed to sit on a chair without supervision, let alone voice opinions. ;-) Pollythewasp (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is obviously not to present hoaxes as fact, even if they are somebody's single favourite hoax. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It used to be that way a few years ago but I suppose the joke wore thin. I think at this point it's probably better to keep it as it is. --5.65.87.152 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mornington Crescent (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/20090227154441/http://www.jaworski.co.uk/index.html to http://www.jaworski.co.uk/index.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) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)