Talk:Dobble

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 5 March 2020 by reviewer SamHolt6 (talk · contribs).

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

People playing Dobble.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order[edit]

So the connection to finite projective planes seems to suggest that similar games can be constructed with only certain numbers of pictures per card - viz. 2-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33 and 50, and others, but certainly not 7 or 11, among others (all numbers one more than the "order" of the mathematical structure [1]). Obviously, that is not correct - and truly, the article doesn't say so! E.g., taking the "Junior" version of the came with 31 cards (30 cards commercially) and 6 pictures per card, one may add 31 unique pictures, one to each card, and thus create a perfectly playable game with 31 cards with 7 pictures per card, using 62 different pictures of which 31 occur at 6 cards each, and 31 occur only once. The corresponding mathematical structure does not satisfy the criteria for being a finite projective plane, and the creation is much less "optimal" than those that do, using way too many different pictures. But can it be clearly stated, proved, and, for the purposes of wikipedia, sourced, that such games not based on finite projective planes are all much less "economical"? (In fact, the commercial Dobble games, "missing" two cards in the standard version and one in the junior version, are also slightly less economical.)--Nø (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC) revised --Nø (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC) PS. I've created and printed games with 12, 17 and 20 pictures per card; they are perfectly playable, but of course slower than the versions with 6 or 8.--Nø (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC) revised --Nø (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be happy to see my question answered in the article. I suspect the answer is that if the number of symbols is n, and m is the largest order of a projective plane strictly less than n, then n-m-1 symbols on each card must be unique to that card.--Nø (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]