Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dice/archive1

Dice

Good read, seems to fit the criteria. --Twinxor 21:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object. Close, but lead is way to short, and the history could use a paragraph about rising popularity of dice with the 20th century grow of various games - as it stands, the last date in history is from 13th century. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great article. Yes lead para should be longer. ike9898 00:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
~~object~~ for now. Lead section should be more clear. As it stands, it talks about the dice being a cube and then it states that the dice can be any other shape - maybe this should be changed to "a dice is a usually cubic object" or something like that. Also, the sections on the use of dice in d&d could be summarized; I'd also like to see more information on the non-gambling applications for dice, like their use in children's games. Also, does the youth in the sentence "Horus derided the youth of the period..." refer to more than one youth? With the use of "his" it makes the sentence unclear. Good work though.

Graham 12:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of "Graham", the User:Pianoman87 who vandalized the article by correcting "wear and tear" to "ware and tare", and clearly has ignored the first sentence of the article, need not be heeded. (BTW, that's Horace.)

Noted later: An article only P-M had worked on was vandalized with an obscene personal attack 3 days ago by User:203.144.21.77, and PM seemingly hunted down & rv'd the IP's other (recent) cases, then took an interest in Dice two days later. Well, i won't dignify my speculations by repeating them here.

--Jerzy~t 15:04 & 19:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck thru most of my own contrib immediately above, and removed the strike-thru markup on PM's contrib (except for his now changed vote), consistent with PM's & my statements immediately below. --Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ware and tare thing was not deliberate vandalism. I use a speech synthesizer to do my work, and it usually correctly recognizes homophones, so when it said tear (as in tears that people cry), I thought it was incorrect, so I changed it. I appologize for that, and will try to be more careful in the future. What are you trying to say about any connection between the dice article and my previous work? Take any reply to my talk page.

Graham 01:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not a reply, tho it is occasioned by the contrib above. I may still owe a reply, & will deliver it where PM suggests, if i come up with one i consider appropriate.)

I consider myself obligated to make this public statement. I erred in suspecting Graham/User:Pianoman87 as a vandal. I regret using that label in a summary, where it is a permanent record; the summary for this contrib will contradict my earlier summary. (That is the best i can do w/o confusingly falsifying the edit history by expunging that revision.) This error reflects lack of caution on my part, since i pride myself on being aware of the danger of trusting one's (inevitably inadequate) imagination as a guide to possible alternative explanations.

I did look (between my two previous edits here) for further evidence of vandalism, w/o finding any. In that light, i took PM for one of the rarer varieties of vandal: the subtle vandal, who disguises the damage they do, especially with valid editing, so that it remains in place relatively long, as a minor blemish, rather than making a big splash that is quickly reverted. (And the unstated speculations i mentioned, which grew out of my short investigation, would be now been even more unworthy of exposure than before.)

The reversions PM did of User:203.144.21.77's vandalism deserved to be taken at face value: as diligent service beyond his obligations.

Overall, i would wish i had earlier taken PM for a valuable colleague, as i now do.

--Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My objections have been resolved. Changed vote to support. Graham 01:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article be rendamed Die (game) or Die (somthing. The wikipedia policy is to use singular. I can see though why it would be called dice because it's hard to find somthing to put after it. Not a vote Broken Segue 01:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This article is fairly solid but it contains a number of omissions:
1. Traditionally single dice are commonly used in children's games of nineteenth century origin such as Snakes & Ladders and Ludo. The statement about multiple dice being traditional is, therefore, not the whole picture.
2. I would like to see acknowledgement of the prevalent practice of calling a single die "a dice" (even though the misuse offends me).
3. The section on materials is exclusively about polyhedral dice. This should be associated with the polyhedrals section or made more general.
4. Novelty dice include "decision dice" with an optional behavioural word on each face: an example that I recall bore "sleep", "eat", "work", "play", "clean", and "TV". Others have been made for sexual games and to promote awareness of desirable work practices. I lack the details to add this comprehensively.
5. Other symbolic dice that spring to mind are the direction dice in Adventure (game) and Mississipi Queen. I am sure that there are more.
6. Chase (1986) was an abstract board game designed by Tom Kruszewski for TSR that used dice as playing pieces. I imagine that there are others.
--Theo (Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]