Talk:Monopoly (game)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like Hasbro has been editing this page

Check out the Revision as of 13:47, 11 September 2006 by 64.223.12.150, Hasbro IP address found via Wiki scanner. - 71.236.147.130 22:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

History section fork

I decided to be bold and do something I've thought about and discussed on here before - namely fork the history section of this article into its own article. I think it stands alone quite nicely, and it shaved 12kb off of this article's size. --JohnDBuell 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done, John. That was a good idea and I think that it has worked well. That being so you may wonder why I have added a summary back. I have done so because it is common practice when splitting off a section as a new article to leave a short summary in the original article. This makes a better section than just having a plain link. As you can see I have used the intro from the new article as it seemed ideal for the purpose. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite surprising that any mention of Lizzie Magie has been removed from the main page. Certainly her contribution deserves mentioning on the main entry, despite Hasbro and Parker Bros seventy year attempt to erase her contribution from the record. The Wikipedia is not a place for corporate PR. If someone wants to move the history section to its own page, that is one thing. Removing Lizzie Magie from the main page is something quite different. --Anonymous 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago, I noticed that Miss Magie was not mentioned in this article and added information about her to it. I see that you have more recently done the same. Well done. What's corporate PR got to do with it ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hasbro's PR and marketing attempts to excise any mention of Magie from Monopoly -- 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If her name is to be restored to the main article text, let's at least get the facts correct! --JohnDBuell 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Derek, if you want to copy some or part of the revised history section back to the introduction of the new history article, go ahead. I wrote the introduction to the new article (which you correctly copied back here as a teaser) to be a teaser to the new article itself, not wanting to give everything away in a three paragraph summary, because, let's face it, the history cannot be well summarized in a mere three paragraphs. --JohnDBuell 01:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And just to set the record straight - in moving the history section off into its own article, which I think everyone will agree is well-deserved, no removal of any specific person's involvment was at all intentional. If it were ever determined that any employee of any corporation was trying to distort an article to match their company's goals or ends....well there are procedures in place for reviewing edits of that sort. I have absolutely no professional affiliation with Hasbro, any of their subsidiaries or their licensees. --JohnDBuell 01:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
John, as I said to you before, I am perfectly happy with the way you split the history off into a new article and never for a moment thought that you were attempting to slant the facts one way or another. While I approve of the mention of Elizabeth Magie in the main article, I thought that the insinuation of corporate PR by the anon contributor was well out of line. You have always edited the Monopoly articles in a sensible, fair and above-board fashion, and so as far as I'm concerned there is no need to change what you have written, and I won't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Other themes of Monopoly

Shouldn't it be stated somewhere in the article that themed Monopoly such as Star Wars and NHL are available? 216.8.131.66 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no specifics, but the idea is touched on in the Variants section of the article. There had been a LONG and ever-growing list, which really isn't a good idea in an article, especially a Featured Article. --JohnDBuell 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if any of you are aware, but there is a new version of Monopoly from Winning Moves. It's called Mega Monopoly, because it has more properties and more spaces. I might like to see some more data about this version in the article.

It's already covered in the List of licensed Monopoly game boards article, under U.S. releases, and the letter M. --JohnDBuell 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Branding

someone could do with adding a short sentence or two about the UK national lottery scratchcard based on monploly. Not knowing much about it, I can't write it, but if someone else does, it would make a good adition.--Warlorddagaz 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other state or national lottery scratchcards, but the Illinois Lottery version is mentioned, indirectly, at the end of the History of the board game Monopoly article. --JohnDBuell 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Snake eyes

As per the assertion that one of the "common house rules" is "A $686 bonus for rolling snake eyes (a pair of ones). $686 is one of each bill," is there a citation for this? I searched for it and found no other sites which listed it other than mirror sites; the only sites I found listed a $100 or $500 bonus, such as this one. Personally, we always played where you got $1000, but I don't know that that's common. Shannernanner 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I'm going to go ahead and edit it, with references. Shannernanner 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo?

i don't get it. Why was my logo deleted? It's not a copyright violation, plus it looks nice.  Scrumshus Talk to me 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Different law. It's a violation of Hasbro's trademark, and would set a bad precedent, as none of the other board game articles use their respective game logos. I really don't think that using a logo as the title to an Infobox could be justified under fair use, without permission from Hasbro, and I doubt they'd grant it. --JohnDBuell 01:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you guys should know, someone vandalized the page. there's an obscenity in the opening paragraphs. Wasn't me, promise.

List of languages that monopoly has versions in

I think there should be a list of languages that it is possible to play monopology in.

Such a list can more or less be inferred from Localized versions of the Monopoly game. --JohnDBuell 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to jail

In a 1980s Finnish translation of Monopoly, one of the "go to jail" cards actually reads "mene vankilaani". The extra i causes this to actually mean "go to my jail". JIP | Talk 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Doubles from Jail

Rolling doubles from jail does not mean that a player has the highest likelihood of landing on St. James Place or Tenesee Ave. (North American version). When talking about rolling doubles, each pair has an equal probability of occuring. Therefore, a player exiting jail on a double roll has an equal (1/6) probability of landing on Electric Company, or Virginia Ave., or St. James Place, or Tenesee Ave., or Free Parking, or Chance. So, it's not that a 6 or 8 has the highest probability of being rolled, just that the orange properties have the highest probability of being landed on (2/6 or 1/3), because there are two which have the possibility of being landed on by exiting Jail. Does anyone else agree with me?

In addition, if you choose the fact that the player may choose to pay a fine, then the Community Chest has the greatest probability of being landed on. Just a thought.

That is true. When rolling two dice without restrictions, there are 36 possibilities. 6 (or 1/6) of them lead to 7, whereas only 1 (or 1/36) leads to 2 or 12. But if you impose a restriction that it has to be a double, then you're effectively only rolling a single die, only moving double the steps. So your reasoning is correct. JIP | Talk 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly

Do Parker Brothers have a Monopoly on Monopoly?

Hasbro does, yes. They own several of the related trademarks. But other companies are free to make similar games. It's all covered in the History of the board game Monopoly article. --JohnDBuell 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probability of landing on "Park Place"

As illustrated by the table, seven is the most probable roll, occurring 6 out of 36 times whereas 2 and 12 are the least probable rolls, each occurring once every 36 rolls. For this reason, Park Place is one of the least landed-on squares as the square seven places behind it is "Go to Jail".

"Go to Jail" is after "Park Place", not before, so why should this have influence on wether or not the player lands on "Park Place"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CutterX (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Umm, go look at the board, "Go to Jail" is before "Park Place". It is in the corner space between the yellow and green properties. --Holderca1 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy

I think that people could copy the representation of the board into Microsoft Word, then create their own Monopoly Board. -Kennercat 8:03 AM 10 December 06

It wouldn't be very evenly spaced out, and people were making their own copies for personal use a hundred years ago (which is why Hasbro now can really only enforce trademarks, not copyrights). --JohnDBuell 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a playboy article on strategy in this game, that nobody referenced...

Sorry to point this out, but a stray playboy article does say that the way to win in monopoly is to buy cheap properties, build houses, but no hotels. Thus creating a "monopoly". -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (don't even ask me to provide references, the fact is clear on its face, but in some issue of playboy this was revealed to me, so I will bet dollars to donuts it can be verified)

Oops. Forgot to mention the idea is that the rules of Monopoly gainsay buying hotels before building four houses, and if you have built 16 houses, no 17th house is available for construction... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a strategy guide. Despite the fact there's a brief strategy section, that's NOT the bulk of the article. And at any rate I think we'd stick to the strategies published by Phil Orbanes, Gyles Brandreth and Alan Axelrod, which are verifiable. --JohnDBuell 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He/She - Gender in the 'Official rules' section

is He/She really necessary in this section? KungFuMonkey 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Two board variant

Not sure if its common/notable enough, but over the holidays we often play by house rules that introduces a second board when playing with 8-12 or so players (at the least the second board being a localised variant, so you have two seperate sets of property for each colour), with the two 'Go' spaces overlapping and the boards forming a figure 8. Didn't see anything similar in the house rules so if anyone else plays this variant maybe its worth adding to the list. -- 86.128.50.181 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New to me but what a good idea! -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somehow, the History of Monopoly article is now linked to a picture of penises. I can't figure out how to fix it. Anyone?

It's the featured article of the day, and thus an instant target of vandalism. Yesterday's and tomorrow's articles will suffer similar fates. Best to let it blow over and let the anti-vandal patrols work on it. --JohnDBuell 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Double rent

This article makes no mention of the fact (I'm fairly sure) that rent for a property (undeveloped) doubles if all the properties of that set are owned. I'm not sure the best way to add this in, either as part of the rent table or just as a comment, so I'll leave it for now. Rawling 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely true by the rules. Your guess is as good as mine for working it into the text. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly Is Evil

This game is evil, I got kicked out of my house because of a game of Monopoly, and it's gotten me beat up over too.--User:67.174.128.249|67.174.128.249]]

Okay, thats nice, but who really cares? Were here to talk about the article, and if you dont have anything to say about it, than dont say anything at all.. Chara Joy Is My Fate 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

game-guide info in a FA???

ok... i contribute a lot to video game aticles and it's a constant battle with trying to keep out overly-specific info. In fact articles are often put up for AfD just because of that. How is it that this article can have a full list of the properties with their costs, rents, mortgages, etc. and be considered an FA? there certainly seems to be a double standard out there for people who don't like the idea of video game related articles reaching FA status. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 11:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case there's significant historical and cultural importance, as the Atlantic City edition has been the one best known throughout the United States and Canada over the last seventy years, and the London-based board is the one best known throughout most of the rest of the English speaking world over that same span. Now granted, some of the statistical information and discussion of the rules could likely be forked into a new article (Monopoly gameplay or something), or cast off to wikia.... --JohnDBuell 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree that there is definitly historical and cultural significance, but not about the fact that the railroads cost $200. I appreciate your honesty that this info shouldn't be here, and it saddens me that there seems to be a double standard out there because this article was able to reach FA status while keeping this obviously subpar material that went against an oft cited example of WP:NOT. Pokémon is easily almost as significant in terms of global ubiquity and is only usurped by the fact that Monopoly has been around longer, but do you think that anyone would allow all 493 articles to give a full list of that pokémon's statistics much in the same way each property is unneccesarily dissected? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just yanked the "Properties in detail" section - about the only thing it added was the change of South Carolina Avenue to North Carolina Avenue. A lot of the rest of the article that remains discusses cultural differences in different editions (US vs UK for example) and items such as the strategy section mirror that of Chess. --JohnDBuell 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boards?

I would argue that the various text versions of the game boards in this article are really a waste of space. If the board design isn't copyright (I assume it is), a scan of the board, or diagram could easily be added as an image, zoomable if someone wants to see the board. It takes up an entire screen and isn't necessary to be in the text (nor do we need to see the board of the british or other variants) TheHYPO 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone can find a good way to scale such a board (where are our good SVG authors? :), I think you'd be right. Yes, the design of the board is protected under copyright and trademark law, which is why there has only been a text/template version here. However, British and Commonwealth residents would argue AGAINST omission of "their" board, as the Atlantic City board is mostly only known in the United States and Canada, and NOT the rest of the English-speaking world. --JohnDBuell 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is, does copyright for some reason not apply to a text representation any more than a png diagram of the same text edition? or does copyright not apply to that any more than an actual photo of the board?. As for which board to show, My basis is to post the standard, original version. I have no problem with a similar image of the UK board, if that's so global, but both, if not one, in text form just bloats the article significantly. A mention of the wide variety of editions, including the British standard board would be sufficient for me, but if people think that should be in there in such detail, that's fine too TheHYPO 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
IANAL. I think what is more important here is trademark law, which protects the particular graphics (lightbulb, water spigot, GO and arrow symbol, cop, jail bars, etc) but does NOT necessarily apply to a text representation. So simply turning the table into a square SVG file should be fine. --JohnDBuell 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't argue the need for the Monopoly board diagram, but rather some of its colors. On the American/Atlantic City board, the Vermont/Connecticut/Oriental block is more "Sky Blue" than Cyan. The reason this becomes important is because the game's "non-colored" spaces are printed in an equally soft Cyan color. I also felt that the Mediterranean/Baltic block should be a darker purple in order to reduce confusion with its St. Charles/States/Virginia (Light Purple) counterpart. -- 141.225.192.236 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mascot

Why is there absolutely no mention of Rich Uncle Pennybags/Mr. Monopoly? I came to this article specifically looking for the name of this mascot character, and it took me like ten minutes to find it through a backdoor. Ridiculous! -leigh (φθόγγος) 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of game

Is 6 hours for a game of monopoly, played by the rules, realistic at all?

I read somewhere that an analysis of the cards, frequency of passing go, etc, yeilded that $33 was added to the game each time someone rolled the dice. In contrast, any building operation (adding houses/hotels) removes 50%, and even purchasing property removes 50% (with another 10% gone if you un-morgage the property later).

The only time I've seen a long game was a pathetic edge case -- one person had all 4 railroads and 2 utilities, and while there were complete color groups, no player had enough money to build houses -- so the railroad/utility player was taking the "go" money as fast as the other players were earning, but no one was getting any closer to bankruptcy. Other than odd cases like that (that one game), I've never seen a game where at least one color group did not get the three houses needed to bring the game to a close.

Now, things like "free parking money" can easily make the game go forever -- heck, I've played some games like that. --Keybounce 06:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the length of the game has more to do with the experience of the player(s), number of players and how many house rules are used. I generally have had longer games when it's just two players, rather than starting with 3-5 and bankrupting opponents along the way. --JohnDBuell 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Housing shortage

The importance of limited housing, and the effect of auctioning the housing when demand exceeds supply, is very important in the close games I've played, yet is not even mentioned in the article. I know, wiki isn't an instruction manual or strategy guide, but shouldn't this at least be mentioned for its importance? --Keybounce 06:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think it can be added without breaking the WP:NOT rules or making an overly long "list of strategies" feel free! --JohnDBuell 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Theme versions

Should we also mention some other theme variation versions like NHL and Sponge Bob Squarepants? They are essentially the same board but with different location names and house design. OhanaUnited 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There was, but it became a victim of nasty listcruft. Everybody wanted to add their own favorite version, or home town to the list, including non-Hasbro sanctioned edititions. That's why they've been forked into the localized lists (for mostly the real geographic places) and the licensed lists (for the other spinoffs, like Spongebob, Star Wars, etc, with box lid art displayed). --JohnDBuell 12:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

World Championship

I read somewhere (yes that's a bit vague sorry) That there's a world championship of Monopoly? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? Mglovesfun 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is, it's next scheduled for 2008. It's covered with some detail in the History of the board game Monopoly article. --JohnDBuell 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New Speed Die Edition

This just in...the Speed Die from Mega Monopoly is being included in newer versions of the standard game. This should be mentioned in the article, yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.243.26.108 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

The Speed Die was new to only the Mega Edition. If other editions have used it or WILL use it, we need a verifiable source. Press releases from Hasbro or Winning Moves Games would be most appropriate. --JohnDBuell 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Auctioning Property

Can somebody add something to house rules how many "casual players" completely disregard the fact that if a player chooses not to buy a property it is auctioned. Instead they just say "nobody buys it".

If it's been published elsewhere, sure. The article was getting ridiculous with every house rule everyone ever thought of being added to the list. --JohnDBuell 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pub crawl/tube game

No mention of the Monopoly Pub Crawl Jooler 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia's Regional Version Voting

The votes have finished for the places used in the Australian version. It's worth updating the section with that, it might also be worth mentioning that the votes were hilariously rigged - South Australia got more votes than all the other states combined. I couldn't find an online source but the print version of the Adelaide paper The Advertiser ran a cover story on the vote stuffing today, on 7th June. 121.45.169.100 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheating

The article is all wrong. The entire point of Monopoly is to test one's ability to cheat. There are several cheating methods:

1) Stealing money from the bank, or better yet, other players

2) Giving someone the wrong ammount of change

3) "Forgetting" certaint rules (e.g. free parking, rolling doubles)

4) Ripping people off when making deals

5) "Manipulating" the dice

6) Crying

7)Throwing the board across the room when you're about to lose

I suggest that these and other methods be added to the "Strategy" section. Would the game really be any fun if you didn't cheat? 12va34 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


No it's not. without cheating, the game can take days to finish. It ceases to be fun and turns ino a game of "who can land on Free Parking first". Cheating is widely accepted as being a part of Monopoly. It deserves it's own section in the article. 12va34 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true. If you play by the real rules, the game shouldn't take forever to finish. If you play with free parking, you ensure that money basically never leaves the game. As such, when everyone's rich, it's much harder to bankrupt players. Additionally, if everyone has a lot of money, it's harder to make deals, because if everyone can build up their monopolies completely, there is no point to not going for the highest-valued group.
But back to the point at hand, I've never seen an article discussing cheating as being integral to the game. I know I have a book on my shelf, Orbanes's The Monopoly Companion (1999), that has a chapter on strategy. I'll see what I can work in from that. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember a National Lampoon article back in the '70s that was a "Monopoly Cheating Kit", including the new property "Steel Pier" that you were supposed to secretly put on the board with rubber cement on top of a less favorable space like "Income Tax" when you land on it. *Dan T.* 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a game in which the object is to cheat and to spot your opponents cheating. It's a card game and, surprise, surprise, one of its many names is Cheat. Monopoly it isn't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Go" in German version

On German boards, the "Go" space is named Los, which can also mean "Bonus" or "Prize."

I deleted the above line, since the German word "Los" does not mean bonus or prize. Although it can translate as "lot", such an interpretation is rather unlikely. Dagonet 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What a shame that Germany isn't in America, because then your comment would be relevant. 75.3.231.89 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monopoly.svg

Image:Monopoly.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured status

Please do not removed the featured status template from this article or from the articlehistory. Featured status can only be conferred by community consensus and Raul654 at WP:FAC, and can only be removed at WP:FAR. Individual editors do not confer or remove featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The parent company has been vandalized in the History section. Can someone revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettxPW (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

English board?

The picture in question

Shouldn't the picture of the board be an American one? I really think so, so I'll replace it when I can if no one does before me. If you have an arugement, leave it here. - ~VNinja~ 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? This game is produced in many versions in many countries, one version is as good as any other. Besides, you have to look close to see which version it is. (BTW the prices are in DM, which makes it an out-of-date German version.)
If you really want an "English board", that would be one with names from "Old Kent Road" to "Mayfair", with prices in £! :-) TiffaF (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what you really want is a board with the last property being Boardwalk, with prices in $! --Pikachu of the Monopoly game 15:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC) It's me, PrincessKirlia. How do you like my new signature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessKirlia (talk • contribs)

Go, jail, go to jail

It may just be the flu, but I got very confused with the list of squares. Maybe it's because we always call "Go" start, but "Go, jail" seemed to me to be missing the "to" and by the time I'd worked out what it was supposed to say I'd forgotten why I was reading the article.

So, I put in "and the four corner squares:" as a prefix to the list, go, jail, free parking and "Go to jail". My other thought was to say: "Go (the starting square), jail, "Free parking", and "Go to jail".

Ah, I remember, why I was reading it. 212.139.103.106 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Online Monopoly?

Is Monopoly played online anymore? PlaySite.com had it a few years ago, but then got rid of it and Games.com got it, along with a bunch of other board games. But then all those board games disappeared. Sohcahtoa1982 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have NOT seen it online - it used be on "Games.com" but Yahoo Games bought it out and divested of all trademarked games on their own site - instead option to sell them. I have a friend in the Philippines who has never heard of Monopoly. Does that even seem possible?

Deletion discussion for Board Templates

I have listed the 2 templates for the boards, which are trademarked, for deletion as copyright violations. For those who have interest in the Monopoly page, you may want to review the TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 6. Since the templates for deletion seem to get overlooked compared to the AfD, I wanted to mention it here as well. Slavlin (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Print your own Monopoly money

Parker Bros. has free PDFs to download for printing the original style Monopoly money. http://www.hasbro.com/games/kid-games/monopoly/default.cfm?page=StrategyGuide/gametools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stock Exchange

Under the stock exchange portion of the article, it says, "Should the player decline, the 1936 rules explicitly state that an auction is held for the privilege of purchasing a share, and this would appear to imply that the winner of the auction for that privilege then pays the regular price for the share chosen after winning the auction." However upon looking at the source, I found no such sentence even remotely saying that. In fact, the source says, "If the player declines the option, the Banker immediately offers this OPTION for sale at Auction and sells it to the Highest Bidder." The article is wrong as written now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.243.154 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just spotted this myself and have corrected the article. Not only does the statement you quote from the article not correspond to the rules, it plain doesn't make sense. An auction under those terms would never terminate because any player who could afford to pay the regular price for the share could afford to bid any price for the share, knowing that they'd only have to pay the regular price. Nobody would ever stop because they couldn't afford to bid more. "I bid a million dollars." "A billion!" "A dollar for every star in the universe!" "A dollar for every atom in the universe!!" "Two dollars for every atom!!" "Five!!!" "A one with the number you just said of zeroes after it!!!" Dricherby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a house rule?

This was listed under house rules- "If a player lands on somebody's property and the owner doesn't realize that they own it, and either the owner (if it's their turn) or another player rolls the dice, the owner cannot make a retroactive claim for rent - a bit harsh, if a player's eyesight or literacy skills are somewhat impaired."

I recall that being part of the official rules, so I checked and found this as part of the official rules: "The owner may not collect the rent if they fail to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice."

I think the listing under house rules is somewhat misleading. While the official rules gives a slightly longer grace period (two players rolling the dice, rather than one) there is still no retroactive claim for rent allowed after that. Perhaps I'm biased, but the official rule as written was a very important one in the family games I played as a kid, because invariably you had a player who wouldn't pay attention to the game at all and had to be punished somehow, this rule was perfect for that. 68.238.166.52 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is a house rule which replaces the official rule that a player must claim money due before the second person following rolls the dice. Assume A lands on somebody's property in a game in which the turn sequence is A, B, C, D. According to this house rule, the owner must demand payment before B rolls the dice. According to the official rules, the owner must demand payment before C rolls the dice. Nibios (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit and other Frauds

The invention of the game is very much "skimmed over." That's pretty weird, since Darrow didn't invent the game at all, and subsequent lawsuits, including the "Parker Brothers vs. Anti-Monopoly" was a Supreme Court Decision, allowing both entities to exist - although Hasbro has been working at keeping Anti-Monopoly off shelves (See "AntiMonopoly.com") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.16.101 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Very long games

Some games can drag on for hours. This can happen when a few players have fully upgraded their monopolies. So that with the payment of someone else landing on their property, they are able to pay for landing on of the others property. With the reaching of the maximum of available upgrades, they have nothing to do with their extra money. So they keep getting $200 added to their impressive stack of money. Until, purely out of chance, they land on their opponents property many more times than their opponent landed on theirs. Thus a game can last a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.46.76 (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Most landed on chance space?

from the article it says that the chance space after Illinois avenue is the most landed on chance space, how is this true? Mwv2 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the section mentions the red, orange and magenta sections being passed through more frequently, as they are directly after "jail". A Chance square among the reds will be hit more frequently than the greens or blues. --McGeddon (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Credit card version

With such a huge section devoted to the money shouldn't some mention be made of the recent "Credit Card" version that eschews money for the use of Crdit Card" and a card reader? I can't get to the site from work but I'm sure there's details there. Padillah (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Documentary about MONOPOLY

I'm producing a documentary about MONOPOLY titled Under the Boardwalk that has a planned theatrical release date of 2010. More info about the documentary can be found at MonopolyDocumentary.com. I leave it to you all to decide whether or not this should be included in the Spinoffs or Variants section of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tostie14 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I added your site/project to the "External links" section. Looks very interesting... good luck. JBarta (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly Template

I was very surprised to find out there's no Navigational Template for Monopoly, considering all the various articles, games and variants that are related. I quickly threw one together, but I haven't added it to any of the pages yet as it needs some help. If you're interested in giving it some help, please do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Monopoly

Thanks! TheUncleBob (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The giant boards/tables

Wow... They take up quite a bit of space in the article. I don't know the limits of Wikipedia, but I know some articles that have tables that can be re-arranged by clicking an icon on the table.

Is there some way to incorporate this into the Monopoly boards? I'm thinking one board could be the default, then an option to click an icon that pulls up one of the other three boards. This could, in theory, be used to bring in common board variants without increasing the size of the article too much.

But, again, I don't know if this is even possible - any ideas? TheUncleBob (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed the old American and UK boards by default. This reduces the amount of room taken by the boards. I hesitated to do this earlier because I was afraid that users would miss the "show" link and not realize that other board layouts were viewable. As far as making the boards smaller, any smaller and the text would be unreadable/cramped. The old boards were a little smaller, but the layout was uneven (especially the UK board). These are a little bigger, but much more realistic and attractive (IMO). Perhaps we might include all 3 boards (and later others) together in a sub-section under Board called Layouts. That way they could all be collapsed and smaller, yet be more apparent to users and fully expandable and viewable with a click. Thoughts? JBarta (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New article for ALL licensed and localized editions

I created a new article and a new template with the intent of combining and standardizing List of licensed Monopoly game boards and Localized versions of the Monopoly game. Currently, those two articles cover various editions of Monopoly, but they do so in a somewhat haphazard and overlapping way. With the new template, board details can be standardized, consistent and better organized. If anyone is interested in helping, the first order of business is to move board details from the two old articles to the new article making use of the new template. JBarta (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Two new Monopoly templates

1) Monopoly board detail (described above) for use in the article Licensed and localized editions of Monopoly. If you'd like to add a board detail to that article, this template should be useful. Below is an example.

My Sample Board
Copyright date: 1899 Released by: Parker & Parker Issued through: C.K. Dexter Haven & Assoc.
Free Parking
 Kentucky Avenue
$220		ChanceIndiana Avenue
$220		Illinois Avenue
$240		B&O Railroad
$200		Atlantic Avenue
$260		Ventnor Avenue
$260		Water Works
$150		Marvin Gardens
$280		Go To Jail
New York Avenue
$200		My Sample BoardPacific Avenue
$300
Tennessee Avenue
$180		North Carolina Avenue
$300
Community ChestCommunity Chest
St. James Place
$180		Pennsylvania Avenue
$320
Pennsylvania Railroad
$200		Short Line
$200
Virginia Avenue
$160		Chance
States Avenue
$140		Park Place
$350
Electric Company
$150		Luxury Tax
(pay $100)
St. Charles Place
$140		Boardwalk
$399.95
In Jail/Community ServiceConnecticut Avenue
$120		Vermont Avenue
$100		ChanceOriental Avenue
$100		Reading Railroad
$200		Income Tax
(pay $200)		Baltic Avenue
$60		Community ChestMediter-ranean Avenue
$60		Go
(collect $200)
Game description: Classic game board, but with solid gold tokens and real money. "In Jail/Just Visiting" is now "In Jail/Community Service" and Boardwalk's color has been changed to hot pink and its price has been drastically reduced to $399.95.
Tokens: Thimble, racecar, top hat, wheel barrow, battleship, shoe, lion, tiger and bear.
Other features: Game includes a battery operated, single axis, twin cam die thrower with LED backlights.
 


2) Monopoly board layout for adding a Monopoly board layout to any article (such as this one). It's similar to the detail above, but it's just the board layout. Below is an example.


My Sample Board
Free Parking
Kentucky Avenue
$220		ChanceIndiana Avenue
$220		Illinois Avenue
$240		B&O Railroad
$200		Atlantic Avenue
$260		Ventnor Avenue
$260		Water Works
$150		Marvin Gardens
$280
Go To Jail
New York Avenue
$200		MONOPOLYPacific Avenue
$300
Tennessee Avenue
$180		North Carolina Avenue
$300
Community ChestCommunity Chest
St. James Place
$180		Pennsylvania Avenue
$320
Pennsylvania Railroad
$200		Short Line
$200
Virginia Avenue
$160		Chance
States Avenue
$140		Park Place
$350
Electric Company
$150		Luxury Tax
(pay $100)
St. Charles Place
$140		Boardwalk
$400
In Jail/Just Visiting
Connecticut Avenue
$120		Vermont Avenue
$100		ChanceOriental Avenue
$100		Reading Railroad
$200		Income Tax
(pay $200)		Baltic Avenue
$60		Community ChestMediter-ranean Avenue
$60
Go
(collect $200)


The template documentation has more info on their use. Any questions or problems, let me know. JBarta (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Win condition

I may be crazy, but the "rules" section doesn't seem to specify what the game's win condition is, only how one moves around the board and buys things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.53.158 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

speed die

A quick thing about the speed die. I was playing Monopoly with it last week and the dice in my cousin's set had the 1, 2, & 3 pip sides, but where the article says 2 Mr Monopoly sides & 1 bus, ours had 2 buses and 1 Mr Monopoly. I dunno if we had an odd die or if the speed die are different in the UK to the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.153.118 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Variants

There seem to be many other variants of this game like Holopoly: http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4700000/Holopoly-debate-4751081-558-555.jpg --41.151.81.180 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless a variant has been noted by a third-party source, IMO it likely is not significant enough for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Add-Ons

I tried to add the add-ons Get Out of Jail and Free Parking to the Add-Ons section, though SQGibbon reverted the edited, saying that the add-ons "are not official." As both add-ons are made by Hasbro, covered in Monopoly logos including the official "Monopoly board" logo on the bottoms of both boxes, and include rules to use the mini games with the official Monopoly game, I blieve this classifies them as official add-ons. I am adding these two add-ons back to the page with additional citations from hasbro.com. If there are any other thoughts about these add-ons, please discuss them here before reverting edits so as not to cause an edit war. Thank you. 216.39.200.85 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Get Out of Jail, Free Parking, the Stock Exchange ARE officially licensed products, as was the Playmaster. They certainly DO belong. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Owning All Properties in a Color Group a Monopoly?

There appears to be conflicting information in the article. In one place we find, "player must own all of a color group (commonly mistaken for being called a monopoly) in order to build houses or hotels." Elsewhere, "all developments on a monopoly must be sold before any property of that color can be mortgaged or traded." I'd be most interested to know to what the name would refer if the parenthetical in the first quote is correct but, regardless, we seem to require editing to achieve consistency. Czrisher (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the official rules is the term "monopoly" used to refer to all properties of a color group. I would say a better way to explain it would be to say "...a color group (commonly mistaken for being called a monopoly) in order..." It is not a mistake, just an unofficial term.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Or just call a color group a color group, and forget about it. A complete color group, a complete set of four railroads, and the pair of utilities are considered monopolies, one of the basic principles of the game, even if not explicitly stated. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Christchurch photo

A public art initiative by a group called Gapfiller on a building site in Manchester Street, left vacant after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake

Why is this photo non-relevant? Schwede66 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not actually about the game. Rwessel (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Lots of articles have an "In popular culture" section, and none of those contents are about the actual article. Are you suggesting that those sections are always irrelevant? And if not, why is an application of this board game as an art installation not relevant to this article? Schwede66 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Since Monopoly and its predecessor games have been around for over 100 years, that's a lot of time for building up a "Monopoly in Popular Culture" section. They tend to get thoroughly out of control at that stage, since everyone who says "get out of jail free" seems to be referring to the game. I think a separate page existed at one time, but was probably deleted for being non-encyclopedic. You're welcome to restart one, if you can keep the list-cruft out. Good luck. --JohnDBuell (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cardboard tokens in wooden blocks from UK 1940s sets

I can certainly confirm that these exist—as a child I played Monopoly with the cardboard tokens. I think that the set is probably stored in my parents loft, would a photo of them be sufficient as evidential citation? (If I can find them!) --Geoff Riley (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. We need a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We featured video of these cardboard tokens in the film Under the Boardwalk: The MONOPOLY Story, which is also used as a reliable source for other elements in this article and the History of Monopoly article. Tostie14 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Link to Official Rules is out of date

On the main page, someone added a link to the "official rules" on Hasbro's website. While the link is accurate, the resulting PDF is actually an outdated set of rules from the #9 edition sold before 2008. Some notable differences include the inclusion of the speed die, the removal of the 10% option for paying income tax, and the distribution of starting bills to each player. I'd suggest we remove that link. Tostie14 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit on February 10 2014

I replaces the commas and added semi colons to the prices of the railroads.

TheInformativePanda (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How come the Standard (American Edition) Monopoly board layout as of September 2008 is not wikilinked

Like the UK Edition Monopoly board layout and Monopoly Here and Now: The US Edition (2006) are. Thanks!

Unless I'm missing what you're asking, it's already there. Just scroll up a bit. Tostie14 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sociopoly

The spinoff "Sociopoly" seems prominent enough and important enough to be included. See: http://laurenssociologyblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sociopoly.html for mention of it and http://www.scdc.org.uk/media/resources/Grundtvigcasestudies/Sociopoly%20board%20game%20%28Hungary%29.pdf for a more detailed description of the game. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

suggested minimum age should be specified

in the box on right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.162 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Illustrator Matt Pocock

Is there any proof that Matt Pocock is the original illustrator of Mr. Monopoly and other game artwork? In Phil Orbanes' book on the history of Monopoly, the original illustrator was unknown. The only sites that I can find that verify Matt Pocock are ones that are referencing this Wikipedia page. Tostie14 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no responses to my query over the past 6 months, I did research into the history of this page and found that Matt Pocock was added as the game's Illustrator by User:Nkhemlani, who has only ever made 2 contributions to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nkhemlani), both to this page. Nkhemlani never included any source for the addition, and I cannot substantiate that Matt Pocock was ever associated with the game, other than that name being added to the Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, now that that name has been on this page for 3 years, many many other websites and articles have treated this information as fact. I thought it was time to remove it until someone can find a valid source prior that existed prior to the addition on Wikipedia in Sep 2012. Tostie14 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has reverted the edit I made a year ago to remove the unsourced illustrator listed in the infobox, I think it's safe to assume that this is resolved. I will remove this section of Talk and move it to the Archive. Tostie14 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo of game?

I find it amazing that their is no photo of this game, one of the most popular in the world (for an example of what I'm talking about, see this board game). The table layout is great, but a photo would help too. Is there really some stringent legal nuance that prevents us from including a photo of this nearly ubiquitous game? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Monopoly (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Monopoly stats?

I and 2 or 3 other statisticians have determined the most-landed-upon spaces, which ones have the greatest value/return on investment, etc. I'm curious if anyone thinks that kind of content would have a fit in this article. (And, I apologize in advance if it's already there or already discussed...I'm currently experiencing a bug which prevents me from reading any WP content on any page.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this information available in a reliable source? If we can't verify it, we can't include it. DonIago (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've personally verified the stats posted at [[1]], and have an Excel spreadsheet that models the first 500 turns I could provide if desired, but that of course falls under original research. And I'm not sure if "random guy's webpage" would qualify as WP:RS in many persons' eyes despite its veracity. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that's a "no" then. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging. Sorry, but the link you provided doesn't look like an RS to me. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries! I figured that was the case. It does appear to be true - I've now found a third resource, and all three show identical stats using different methodologies - but I agree none of them likely fit WP:RS. Oh well. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you guys put the weight of the board, the size of the spaces ,and some others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.38.36 (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There is in Poland since 1983 a game called Eurobusiness [2] --Erixson (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The element with the hidden image of a 2008 board

Something's wrong with this section, and I don't dare try and fix it, because I'm not quite sure what the intention of it was. Shouldn't it just be an image insert to the side somewhere, like the other images? It looks like a mess currently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#U.S._versions 195.249.185.2 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. What problems are you seeing? Does the UK board look O.K.? Are you reading the article on a smart phone or on a computer? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it looks incorrect to me as well. The "Standard (American Edition) Monopoly board as of September 2008" spanner bisects the two nearby graphics (original Monopoly board patent and 2014 US Monopoly box) on my screen, as well as splitting in half the paragraph that begins "In the U.S. versions shown below...". This is on a 64-bit version of Internet Explorer 11, Windows 7 desktop. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added {{clear}} before the hidden image. Does that fix the problem? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that fixes it for me at least! I'll have to remember that trick, thanks. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What's a designer?

I don't think Magie should be called a "designer" of Monopoly per se. Though her game might have influenced Darrow, it's like saying that Naismith was influenced by some other game when he designed basketball. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@129.78.68.110, I'm not sure how much you know about Magie's game, "The Landlord's Game," as well as how Darrow actually learned about the game of Monopoly (he didn't invent it, despite what Hasbro wants you to believe), but there has been established a clear line of how the game got from Magie to Darrow. If anything, there should be more names listed as "designers" or "influencers" of the game than fewer. Tostie14 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Magie clearly was an influencer of Monopoly; that is indisputable. Was she a designer? In my opinion, no, she was instead a designer of The Landlord's Game, which influenced (and formed the basis of) Monopoly. She did not directly design Monopoly, in other words, but her contribution and influence are enormous. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering that Darrow only added some graphical improvements and typed up the rules, calling him the sole designer is a stretch. See this board from Charles & Olive Todd who introduced the game to Darrow, and it only further muddies the "designer" waters: [3] (also on [4]). Tostie14 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Section blanked

a section and contents/sources was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopoly_(game)&diff=prev&oldid=751836269 I undid the deletion and asked that a section deletion be discussed here. It was deleted again. I disagree with the edit summary something about how the well-sourced criticism section was "viewpoints". (which is what criticism is, right?) And also one of the criticism items was reference to a ranking which was subject to editorial review. I'd like to see the section returned to the article as there is enough available criticism for it's own section and I think it would be better in a section rather than in the body of the article, but if the section is not returned, the content or some of the content should be put back into the article.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My main reason for removal was that the section gave undue weight to a(n argurably) minor viewpoint. I will admit I am partly in the wrong by not taking it to the talk page first and instead just straight-up reverting. With that said, I do believe it is undue weight, and should be removed, unless you can convince me otherwise. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was curious about you saying WP:UNDUE because the section is criticism, so it's going to be critical. Also, the section, I think was developed by multiple editors over time, and the sources seem pretty solid especially as far as criticism is concerned. I'm not sure if I get your point, but if the section was changed to something like "Praise and criticism", would that be more balanced in your opinion? TeeVeeed (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
If this were a film article we'd call the section something neutral like "Reception", and make sure that there were enough opinions present to represent the general consensus. In other words, if the film had a 75% at Rotten Tomatoes, we'd try to include something like three positive reviews and one less favorable review (obviously I'm approximating here). I would suggest that if we're going to discuss critiques in this article then a similar approach should be adopted. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
"Reception" is exactly what a section in the board game Candyland has-(but it is all postive-no criticism). I have not found other sections in the board game articles yet. Also, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#External_links this advises to use (one of the critical sources), BoardGameGeek in articles. Also, one more thing we may want to consider here is that this is a former featured article.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My Connection to Monopoly

Since User:Spshu decided to note on the talkpage for this page and on the page that was created about me noting that I may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the Monopoly article, I want to clarify that I have not received any payment from Hasbro (makers of Monopoly) in regards to my producing of the film Under the Boardwalk: The MONOPOLY Story. I make contributions to the Wikipedia articles for the game of Monopoly and the history of Monopoly because of my depth of knowledge on the subject having spent many years researching the game and its tournaments. I fully recognize that there may be a perceived conflict of interest with me editing a page that covers a subject that I made a film about, but that shouldn't disqualify me from being able to work on other aspects of the Monopoly page. Many other editors who have written or edited this page in the past should be aware of the large number of contributions that I have made to this page over the years, especially around the history of the Monopoly tournaments. One such edit was the eventual removal of a bogus and unsourced addition of the "illustrator" Matt Pocock to the infobox that unfortunately lived on this page for years and then became referenced on many other webpages that used this Wikipedia article as its source. Kevin Tostado - Tostie14 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

The 7th Feb Article, as of 26th Jan, 2017

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)

Edit Requests for Monopoly Page

Checked * In the "1990s–present" section (#1.5), the line about the 2003 US National Championship should be moved to the section about US Monopoly Championships (Section #8.1). I believe this doesn't belong in the history of the game section as it's more about the tournaments than the game.

Checked * In the "Tokens" section (#3.6), if you review the linked source, the page currently incorrectly says that the cat got 29% of the vote. The 29% refers to the dog getting the highest percentage of existing tokens. The cat actually got the highest of the new token options in 2013 of 31% (again from the source that is linked there).

Checked* Also in the "Tokens" section (#3.6), it states "All options would be available in the Monopoly Signature Token Collection limited edition released in the second quarter 2017." There are no plans to release a set containing all 64 tokens (Hasbro has never done anything close to this) and the referenced source doesn't verify this statement. There is currently a set on sale that includes 8 of the potential new options as well as the existing 8 (see <http://www.hasbro.com/en-us/product/monopoly-token-madness-game:FDB1B356-5056-9047-F556-6BFD86269A07), and I have an email from a Hasbro PR representative that states that the winning token in each of the 8 categories will become the new standard tokens in the basic set (also known as #9).

I am asking that another editor please verify and make these edits so that my apparent COI doesn't cause a problem. Tostie14 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tostie14: Hi there Tostie14, firstly thanks so much for your patience and thank you for requesting edits. Okay, so regarding your first item:
  • I disagree that the sentence should be moved because it's outlining a timeline after Hasbro, although I did add a "(see section)" in there.
  • Yes, you're correct on this, I changed it.
  • This seems patently untrue as you can see here
  • As for your image, if you'd like to use it on Wikipedia, you need the person who took it to upload it in order to release their rights to it. Check out our uploading images guide for more info.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any questions! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Drewmutt for making the changes. At the time I requested the edit, the 64 token Signature Edition had not been formally announced or released. In regards to the reference request regarding the photo, I was simply asking for that photo to be linked to as a reference, not posted as media on Wikipedia. While valid fair use is a valid reason to post someone's photo without prior permission, I wasn't asking for us to post the photo on the page, just a link.
I kindly ask that someone now move this talk section to the archive. Tostie14 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links 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:

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) 12:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Speed Die Rules

In regards to the recent Revision at 19:17, May 21, 2017 done by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:D4DB:6BCE:5D23:FBA1, I think the Speed Die optional rules should stay in the page. While the speed die is not a required accessory, the fact that it (and its respective rules) are included in all basic sets of the game now sold on shelves should reflect the speed die rules in with the main page. Tostie14 (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

also, the Speed Die was made mandatory for use in the 2009 U.S. & World Monopoly Championship, as well as the 2015 World Championship.[74] Only official rules are to be used in tournaments; that makes this 200% official in my book! I was going by this-- 

                     Official rules
                     Abridged from Monopoly, Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game, 1997
                     Players take turns...

But I see a better option would be to move the whole paragraph about the Speed Die from Related Games to after Bankruptcy or Rule modifications. It contains some additional information about the Speed Die than just the rule that will prevent further misunderstanding. 

                     Speed Die

Unlike the three add-ons above, which have always been sold separately, the Speed Die was introduced in-game in 2006.[70] In 2007, Parker Brothers began releasing its standard version (also called the Speed Die Edition) of Monopoly with the same die[71] (originally in blue, later in red). First included in Winning Moves' Monopoly: The Mega Edition variant, this third, six-sided die is rolled with the other two, and accelerates game-play when in use.[70] Its faces are: 1, 2, 3, two "Mr. Monopoly" sides, and a bus. The numbers behave as normal, adding to the other two dice, unless a "triple" is rolled, in which case the player can move to any space on the board. If "Mr. Monopoly" is rolled while there are unowned properties, the player advances forward to the nearest one. Otherwise, the player advances to the nearest property on which rent is owed. In the Mega Edition, rolling the bus allows you take the regular dice move then either take a bus ticket or move to the nearest draw card space. Mega rules specifies that triples do not count as doubles for going to jail as you do not roll again.[72] Used in a regular edition, the bus (properly "get off the bus") allows the player to use only one of the two numbered dice or the sum of both, thus a roll of 1, 5, and bus would let the player choose between moving 1, 5, or 6 spaces.[73] The Speed Die is used throughout the game in the "Mega Edition", while in the "Regular Edition" it is used by any player who has passed GO at least once. In these editions it remains optional, although use of the Speed Die was made mandatory for use in the 2009 U.S. & World Monopoly Championship, as well as the 2015 World Championship.[74] I'll edit like this-- 

                     Official rules
                     c.f. Monopoly, Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game, 1997
                     Players take turns...

Speed Die 

                     First included in Winning Moves' Monopoly: The Mega Edition variant, this third, six-sided die is rolled with the other two, and accelerates game-play when in use.[70] In 2007, Parker Brothers began releasing its standard version (also called the Speed Die Edition) of Monopoly with the same die[71]....

I don't know how to move sections, but I'll figure it out. Thanks for letting me know, good luck Tostie14!

New Versions

I added Monopoly Empire because it's so different from the standard editions. Unlike all the branded editions where the names are just switched out for the names of characters and places from a book or movie, Empire has major changes to how the game is played and won. One thing I need help with is that they have changed the brands a few times. I have 2 copies of this game with different brands, and I've seen a 3rd version in stores. Trying to figure out how many versions is why I checked this wiki page. When I didn't even see the game mentioned, I decided to add it.

Also Monopoly is coming to the Nintendo Switch this fall. While I've played electronic versions of Monopoly in the past, this one seems to be a lot different. Is it different enough to mention or should we add a list of electronic versions? --Macha Panta (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

House Rules lack citation! Must Delete! Human Beings are inefficient, therefore they must be destroyed!

Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, nor are personal insults acceptable
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Are you a robot, deleting (and archiving, at least) anything that doesn't have a citation? Is your knowledge of the subject so limited that you can't judge what I wrote on it's own merits? All I was mentioning were some common House Rules, must you act like you've never heard mention? The Free Parking House Rule has COUNTLESS mentions. Who must I add a citation for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:a340:ae00:9975:1a42:faa8:a1e4 (talk • contribs) g

Are your house rules so arcane that you can't provide a reliable source for them? Also take a look at WP:NPA. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC

I may have include one you've never heard of, let me see...ah, sorry I forgot and I can't see... I've edited my comment as it was a bit too much; SORRY, I'll do better! But it did focus on Free Parking's well known house rule. How much, if any, is covered by being well known? Which rule do you consider arcane? Then I'll provide a reliable source. Would an(y) online newspaper article about house rules be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:9975:1A42:FAA8:A1E4 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The link I provided above does a pretty good job of outlining what constitutes a reliable source. I once read a book about the game which discussed several likely better-known house rules, but that was several years ago now. DonIago (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What house rule are you referring to as so 'arcane' that I can't provide a reliable source? So it may have been 5 to 9 years, more or less, since you read this book on the subject? Title? Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:9975:1A42:FAA8:A1E4 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Over ten years, actually. And any house rule that can't be appropriately cited is not appropriate for inclusion. If you want to add a rule to the list, provide a source for it. DonIago (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you answering my questions? Nothing is 'arcane', arcane-calling whatever-you-call-yourself! That means your stupid, because it makes perfect sense to me; what is so mysterious to you? Not everything original is 'arcane', that's just you 'coloring' it to the extreme to make your point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:BD6F:DED0:9E96:DA06 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Added strikethrough of abuse. Editor has been warned on their talk page. --KNHaw (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC) )
 Could someone delete this conversation for me? This is my talk page too, I'd rather leave it without this and start fresh with a much less abrasive tone, if you don't mind.

House Rules lack citation... What if... it's original? Groundbreaking? Remarkably thorough from critical play-testing?

6 Railroads- Utilities cost $200 and accumulate higher rent just like railroads. 5 'railroads' and the rent is $300, 6 is $400. Rent is double with the Advance to Nearest Utility card.

"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." That is Wikipedia:Verifiability at it's core- a clear and unequivocal statement demanding all be previously published. Some house rules have multiple citations; some equally worthy have none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:8D7C:645D:F339:2EA2 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources must be published someplace other than Wikipedia talk pages, and to be reliable, they must be published somewhere with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. We need reliable sources to decide how worthy any rules are, we do not rely on other editors to play-test them. Research you have done on the game, no matter how meticulous, is still original research and isn't appropriate. See Wikipedia:Advocacy, also. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:39, June 23, 2017

I am bringing up my issues with this edit here because I have a perceived COI for this article.

Regarding the latest revision as of 22:39, June 23, 2017 by User:Nyttend, I think parts of it should be undone for the following reasons:

  • The pronouns were gender neutral, and then changed to male.
  • Regarding the income tax rule, while it may have been slightly unclear as previously worded, it is now definitely incorrect. The way that the rule should be described is that prior to the 2008 board revision, if you landed on Income Tax, you must immediately decide whether to pay $200 or 10% of your total assets. You are not allowed to take the time to calculate which would be cheaper before deciding. After you decide, you have to stick to your decision, even if the 10% choice ends up being more expensive. It's also possible that you can be forced to mortgage or trade in order to pay off the 10% fee. The 10% includes all of your cash, the present value of each property (fully owned vs mortgaged) and the full price of each house or hotel for any properties. (If you bought a house or hotel at auction, it is valued at what you would have paid the bank for it if there hadn't have been an auction.)

Tostie14 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) The use of plural pronouns creates the appearance that multiple players are acting together (and the absurdity of multiple players having one mind); this is a simple matter of Agreement (linguistics). It's a basic matter of the English language, and doing otherwise is just as bad as saying something like "this is a simple matters". (2) I knew what the rules meant, but my wording was ambiguous, and I can see that your reading was at least as valid as mine. I've reworded it to "the calculation option was removed from the official rules" to make the situation clear. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the wording on the Income tax. As far as your linked page of Linguistic agreements, since the sentence begins "if a player," I'd argue that "they" in this case would refer to the singular player and not all of the players collectively. Tostie14 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Statistical likelihood of each space: helpful?

I and several online sources have calculated precisely the same statistical likelihood for each space on a standard Monopoly board. I previously did not add that information to this article, because the online sources were not reputable enough. However, per WP:BLUE, I don't think that a citation is truly necessary, any more than a citation for 2 + 2 = 4 would be necessary. So, I have two questions: (1) Does anyone disagree with this? (2) Would this information improve the article? Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that information should be included without a reliable source being provided, as it involves mathematical calculations. As for whether it would improve the article, my inclination is to say that it would be trivial unless sources can be provided to establish its significance, but I'm more flexible on that point. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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:

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) 13:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monopoly_(game)/Archive_2&oldid=1164828637"