![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This Wikipedia entry is beginning as a list of games through history. Where possible the items in the list are linked to more descriptive pages already in Wikipedia. My intention is to begin the process of pulling together a single page that can help people who want to understnad the evolution and history of games. I don't think the content of all of the other pages needs to be duplicated here. Instead, this will help people visit the important pages that describe games in history. It may also motivate people to create new pages for the important games that have not yet been cataloged in Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.smith ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 February 2009
This is more about the history of games in general not just video games; there is a difference. But yes ther is already an article on the history of video games. 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)unknown17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 ( talk)
I caught what appears to be an error in this article. "The first board game for which the name of its designer is known is A Journey Through Europe, a map-based game published in 1759 by John Jefferys." According to David Parlett's The Oxford History of Board Games, p.98, the game "Royal pass-tyme of Cupid or the Most Pleasant Game of the Snake" was invented by John Garrett in 1690. I would be reluctant to call even this the first board game with a known designer. I should add that Parlett attributes this information to Murray's History of Games Other than Chess (1952, 143). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.78.55.13 (
talk)
15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I've started with the rewrite discussed above. To begin with, I am mostly concerning myself with reformatting the lists into paragraphs, but I'm trying to maintain historical accuracy at the same time, so quite a bit of double- and triple-checking has been required. Feel free to correct anything I've messed up. I will add more significant games and types of games as soon as I have taken care of the lists and references. Heather ( talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to use the word "references", because none of these were being used directly to reference anything; they were simply presented, as here, as a bulleted list of references en masse. If I can figure out what any of them were intended to support, I will move them back into the article as proper refs. Until then, here is there bulk of what had been the "References" section of the article prior to a few minutes ago:
Again, if I can figure out what concepts any of these "references" are supposed to go with, I'll move them back, but I'd hesitate to reinsert any that I haven't confirmed for myself. Heather ( talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Below is the list which appeared in the article under the heading "Military games". Most of them are not. It is an indiscriminate list of various training exercises, training concepts, simulators, and vaguely-military-related vaguely-game-related odds and ends. I'm moving it here until its content can be properly worked into the article, assuming that it all actually belongs there. Heather ( talk) 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As above. What follows had been included in the article under the heading "Serious games", which I'm not sure is actually an alternative to, say, board games, tile games, table games, or card games. I am omitting the first four entries, which I already noted above on this page (as likely vandalism). Again, if I can find a way to work any of these into the article, and they seem appropriate and within the article's scope, I will move them back. Heather ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Having discovered this orphaned page and linking it I'm glad to see that it has had soem attention however this page should not become a place to regurgitate information from the other page because much of it is wrong surprisingly contraversial too. This for now is a list without references hopefully I will come back to it later
Mancala could be as old as 7000BC the information on the wikipage is wrong see talk:Mancala even if the stones are not mancala it is still most likely a game board. I ended up reading 300+ papers in 7 languages but gave up on the edit war as I decided to publish instead.
Dice have then been attributed to around 4000 bc although some of the archaeological speculation is thinner than anyone would believe as in, there are a set of holes in the ground with no dice. The earliest dice were in fact knucklebones with two sides. Also specialist dice, cups and coins game in South America
Dominoes then evolve from dice although they existed Europe well before the eighteenth century I think they are in the complete gamester I think the earliest google has scanned is c. 1650. Dominoes then become cards
Backgammon is messy as is the phrase "current form" which would need to include the use of the doubling cube. It is actually much more complicated even when using a simpler form of the game. There is 58 holes or dogs and jackals [1] which is another early forerunner. Along with UR and 20 squares - which is not still played with the known rules today I suspect the BBC ref took this info. from wikipedia. This game then became ludo amongst others. Wikipedia is lacking many key parts of game history. 5 lines, digrammismos pettoia (may have this spelling wrong) are all part of a famous account of games.
There is another family of games daldos that is significant in scandinavia
Chess is using a dubious claim for chaturunga which is largely unsupported. Similarly xiangqi is complex as often Go gets confused with it, indeed at some point it appears that the name of go was simply the same word as game. Now go is the most continuous game with unchanged rules but also using the most conservative time line. The 200 BCE-200AD time line can be narrowed earlier than this. Of course there is the famous myth of its 4000 year old age.
There are numerous errors amongst the ancient board games section. I.e. Go has 60million plus registered players but in fact this is a massive underestimate too. There are some translation issues from Asian records which means this is also likely a massive underestimate.
Snakes and ladders can be traced to Victorian times as a specific creation of the theme however there are spiral boards which are a very similar design of around 2000 years old.
You will never be able to fix a timeline for all the games I tried to track one dice game and there is no written information available you'd need to track word of mouth records. German style board games although tricky genre to describe to the 1900s at least. there is something called the boardgame study journal.
way too much on darts games needs a separate article.
Finally I though the original list included a chinese game that appears to have gone with which I wasn't familiar.
The main issue comes in the use of references for this article you are not going to have a universal agreement in the literature but you must be careful not to try to use passing references in non-expert sources. Tetron76 ( talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of games. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with
Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.
Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.
The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.
To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.
The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.
Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p ( talk) 08:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This Wikipedia entry is beginning as a list of games through history. Where possible the items in the list are linked to more descriptive pages already in Wikipedia. My intention is to begin the process of pulling together a single page that can help people who want to understnad the evolution and history of games. I don't think the content of all of the other pages needs to be duplicated here. Instead, this will help people visit the important pages that describe games in history. It may also motivate people to create new pages for the important games that have not yet been cataloged in Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.smith ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 February 2009
This is more about the history of games in general not just video games; there is a difference. But yes ther is already an article on the history of video games. 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)unknown17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 ( talk)
I caught what appears to be an error in this article. "The first board game for which the name of its designer is known is A Journey Through Europe, a map-based game published in 1759 by John Jefferys." According to David Parlett's The Oxford History of Board Games, p.98, the game "Royal pass-tyme of Cupid or the Most Pleasant Game of the Snake" was invented by John Garrett in 1690. I would be reluctant to call even this the first board game with a known designer. I should add that Parlett attributes this information to Murray's History of Games Other than Chess (1952, 143). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.78.55.13 (
talk)
15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I've started with the rewrite discussed above. To begin with, I am mostly concerning myself with reformatting the lists into paragraphs, but I'm trying to maintain historical accuracy at the same time, so quite a bit of double- and triple-checking has been required. Feel free to correct anything I've messed up. I will add more significant games and types of games as soon as I have taken care of the lists and references. Heather ( talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to use the word "references", because none of these were being used directly to reference anything; they were simply presented, as here, as a bulleted list of references en masse. If I can figure out what any of them were intended to support, I will move them back into the article as proper refs. Until then, here is there bulk of what had been the "References" section of the article prior to a few minutes ago:
Again, if I can figure out what concepts any of these "references" are supposed to go with, I'll move them back, but I'd hesitate to reinsert any that I haven't confirmed for myself. Heather ( talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Below is the list which appeared in the article under the heading "Military games". Most of them are not. It is an indiscriminate list of various training exercises, training concepts, simulators, and vaguely-military-related vaguely-game-related odds and ends. I'm moving it here until its content can be properly worked into the article, assuming that it all actually belongs there. Heather ( talk) 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As above. What follows had been included in the article under the heading "Serious games", which I'm not sure is actually an alternative to, say, board games, tile games, table games, or card games. I am omitting the first four entries, which I already noted above on this page (as likely vandalism). Again, if I can find a way to work any of these into the article, and they seem appropriate and within the article's scope, I will move them back. Heather ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Having discovered this orphaned page and linking it I'm glad to see that it has had soem attention however this page should not become a place to regurgitate information from the other page because much of it is wrong surprisingly contraversial too. This for now is a list without references hopefully I will come back to it later
Mancala could be as old as 7000BC the information on the wikipage is wrong see talk:Mancala even if the stones are not mancala it is still most likely a game board. I ended up reading 300+ papers in 7 languages but gave up on the edit war as I decided to publish instead.
Dice have then been attributed to around 4000 bc although some of the archaeological speculation is thinner than anyone would believe as in, there are a set of holes in the ground with no dice. The earliest dice were in fact knucklebones with two sides. Also specialist dice, cups and coins game in South America
Dominoes then evolve from dice although they existed Europe well before the eighteenth century I think they are in the complete gamester I think the earliest google has scanned is c. 1650. Dominoes then become cards
Backgammon is messy as is the phrase "current form" which would need to include the use of the doubling cube. It is actually much more complicated even when using a simpler form of the game. There is 58 holes or dogs and jackals [1] which is another early forerunner. Along with UR and 20 squares - which is not still played with the known rules today I suspect the BBC ref took this info. from wikipedia. This game then became ludo amongst others. Wikipedia is lacking many key parts of game history. 5 lines, digrammismos pettoia (may have this spelling wrong) are all part of a famous account of games.
There is another family of games daldos that is significant in scandinavia
Chess is using a dubious claim for chaturunga which is largely unsupported. Similarly xiangqi is complex as often Go gets confused with it, indeed at some point it appears that the name of go was simply the same word as game. Now go is the most continuous game with unchanged rules but also using the most conservative time line. The 200 BCE-200AD time line can be narrowed earlier than this. Of course there is the famous myth of its 4000 year old age.
There are numerous errors amongst the ancient board games section. I.e. Go has 60million plus registered players but in fact this is a massive underestimate too. There are some translation issues from Asian records which means this is also likely a massive underestimate.
Snakes and ladders can be traced to Victorian times as a specific creation of the theme however there are spiral boards which are a very similar design of around 2000 years old.
You will never be able to fix a timeline for all the games I tried to track one dice game and there is no written information available you'd need to track word of mouth records. German style board games although tricky genre to describe to the 1900s at least. there is something called the boardgame study journal.
way too much on darts games needs a separate article.
Finally I though the original list included a chinese game that appears to have gone with which I wasn't familiar.
The main issue comes in the use of references for this article you are not going to have a universal agreement in the literature but you must be careful not to try to use passing references in non-expert sources. Tetron76 ( talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of games. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with
Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.
Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.
The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.
To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.
The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.
Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p ( talk) 08:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)