Talk:Solitaire

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Solitaire is also a name of a game played with pegs and holes in the shape of a cross: perhaps the card game should be moved to Card Game, and an entry on Solitaire put here? Dave McKee

Or perhaps move the peg game to peg solitaire?

Which is the more common usage over the world as a whole? ~~~~ 15:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although both Patience and Solitaire are actually the same stuff, the word Patience applies only to countries which use British English (such as the UK and Australia). Furthermore, its most popular variant has an alternative name of Solitaire.

According to the style guide section on National varieties of English under Opportunities for commonality "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker."

In some English speaking countries solitaire is ambiguous and could mean either peg solitaire or patience. Under this guideline this page should be moved to patience and replaced with either peg solitaire or a disambig. Anyone agreeing please go ahead and move the page. 82.42.230.211 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many single player board games referred to as solitaire, maybe it would be better if this paged just described solitaire games as games (usually board or card games) which have a single player and have links to the various games known as solitaire, this page could be renamed patience or Solitaire(Card Game)--91.125.102.152 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Patience" is defined as "Solitaire with Cards", I've moved all the card-specific content to Patience (game), and repurposed this article to be about solitaire tabletop games in general.

-- TimNelson (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a list of card games for one here? 195.194.187.132 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything wrong with searching WP to see if such an article exists? — Smjg (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is primarily about one thing: the term "solitaire" as it relates to games.

OK, so it has a general meaning in relation to games: tabletop games played by a single person. But there isn't any real information here that relates to solitaire games in general. It's mostly little bits about the card subgenre and specific solitaire games - information that belongs in the respective articles.

As such, this article is redundant. Its only real purpose is to distinguish the various games that may be known as "solitaire". This is the purpose of disambiguation pages. Since we already have Solitaire (disambiguation), I just redirected this there. I can't see that anything has been gained by reverting my change.

Moreover, I changed Solitaire (disambiguation) to list the more specific uses that are given here. That has been reverted along with this. To what benefit? Somebody looking for meanings of "solitaire" is unlikely to be looking for an article with little information content like this one. They are more likely to be looking for peg solitaire or patience (game) - so why not just lead them there? Of course, they might be looking for information on solitaire games in general, but this article would need a major rewrite to fulfil that purpose.

As such, I remain inclined to cut out this middleman. — Smjg (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, this is really an article about a class of thing, and a valid link target. Disambiguation pages are not valid link targets. If there is consensus to delete this article is deleted (through an AFD discussion), then rather than redirecting to the dab page (as a WP:MALPLACED dab), the dab page should be moved here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to redirect this page to a disambig page, so the previous redirect was in error. I have no opinion about whether this page should be an article or a diambig page, but under no circumstances should it be redirected somewhere else. 2005 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't contain any significant information beyond a dictionary definition about this class of thing as a whole, hence my point. So it's a bit like a "bird" article that's simply "A bird is an animal with feathers" followed by a list of kinds of bird. — Smjg (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Bird is not a dab. If you're saying that the base article could be expanded, like Bird has been, then I agree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything about the actual Bird article here or its history - I just contrived this example to illustrate my point. But if you can expand this article, by all means do. Just don't pretend it's good as it is. Meanwhile, I've marked it as a stub. — Smjg (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if I can, I will. If you can, by all means do. Just don't pretend that I'm pretending it's good. Marking it as a stub is fine. Being a stub, needing expansion, and simply "not being good" are not reasons for deletion. See WP:DP and WP:DEMOLISH. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the USA, it may refer to any card game played by oneself"

Really? This statement seems to assume Windows operating system has had no cultural impact on the US culture. --Bxj (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? — Smjg (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not sure what the individual means. US usage influenced Windows naming of their "solitaire" game, not the other way around. In the US, if one says "I'm playing solitaire", it is automatically assumed it's the card game. The name "patience" is generally unheard of. Eastcote (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the article on Patience get deleted and redirect to Solitaire?

This Solitaire page is a stub without any references, yet the Patience page had References.

Terrible American centrism. Dlpkbr (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 31 December 2013

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Patience (game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Solitaire (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted the deletions by User:Onceinawhile because they appear to be made in haste after his recent AFD request was turned down. I agree that the article does need improving, but that will entail expansion rather than reducing it to a skeleton, perhaps in the hope that another AFD will then succeed. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia. Bermicourt (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: what was done in haste was your reversion. Why would you remove the information from Patience (game)? That doesn't help anyone. Why would you add a source which failed verification here - that damages Wikipedia.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Talk:Patience (game)#Reversion of imported material, if you cannot explain why you have made those reversions here, your revert will be reverted. "I don't have time, and I am not sure about other editors' motivations" is not a content-based rationale. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think we need to take a considered approach. There is a lot more that could be added to the history section at Patience (game) and I have many of the sources needed in my library of not just English, but French and even rare German books on the topic. Of course, other editors could do this too - if they have access to a similar range of resources. What isn't helpful is to transfer words and sources from this article leaving it devoid of information. It needs to be an overview of solitaire games including e.g. the history of board solitaires, not just card solitaires. Again, I have some key sources in my library, although I'm sure there are others.

Wrt the failed source, which one are you referring to? Obviously we want to be using WP:RS.

Re the changes at Patience (game) the Wiki process is to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page, not to re-revert which just leads to WP:EDITWARRING and a potential ban.

HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your question, please see my edit comment here: [1]

You admitted to making a blind revert, and have shown here that you did not read the edit comments, so I have every right to undo your edits. So please don't make threats. Let's try to discuss here.

With respect to your comments on building out the history section, I was writing the below at the same time. It seems to me that you propose to take what is currently a content fork, and turn in into an WP:OR synthesis. I recognize you have a good library of sources on individual games, but in the deletion discussion you were unable to produce a single source covering the purported scope of this article (which as we discussed, you changed your mind on during the discussion).

The content fork should be removed.

Then, when we have appropriate sources covering the actual scope of this article, not just individual components, the article can be built out.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history section must cover the scope of this article.

Whilst the deletion discussion showed clearly that there is no consensus on what that scope is, we can all be certain what it is not. It is not to create a content fork of card solitaire; which is what the history section that Bermicourt added back in is.

Note we must be very careful to avoid WP:SYNTH. If editors propose to present the history of peg solitaire and mahjong solitaire alongside the history of card solitaire, implying that it is one connected history, but without a source stating that it is one connected history, that would be a contravention of WP:OR.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: to avoid conflict here I will show Patience for your proposal to Solitaire-ily fix the article with the sources in your library. How much time do you need?

In order to avoid subsequent conflict, once you have found the sources you want to use please could you bring some quotes here so we can be sure that they address the proposed scope? At the AfD you brought a number of sources which, on further inspection, were not what they were claimed to be.

It will also allow us to agree on what the proposed scope is going to be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've sorted Patience (game) for now. This article now needs to be worked on and I have some sources that will help (Parlett x 3, Bell x 2, Murray, Fisk and possibly some non-English sources where relevant), but I'm not available to do that for some weeks now. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: please could you address the WP:SYNTH / WP:OR point above? We should make sure we understand each other on this core point now so we don’t waste a lot of time later.

Separately, if you want to wait for an indefinite number of weeks, can we please first fix the failed verification source in the intro, and do something about the sections which currently are nothing more than content forks from the Patience article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bermicourt: it's been almost two months now - have you been able to gather the sources required? Before you do the work I think it would help if you can confirm that they address either the WP:WORDISSUBJECT point or the WP:SYNTH point raised previously?

In other words, we need sources that show either that:

• if the word solitaire is the subject of this article, that the word... itself [is] an encyclopedic subject or,
• if the article is about a genre of games, that Mahjong Solitaire, Peg Solitaire and Card Solitaire comprise a specific genre of games on their own

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SportingFlyer, Clarityfiend, Phil Bridger, Rosguill, and QuicoleJR: since you each commented at the deletion discussion a couple of months ago. Suggestions on how to move forward would be helpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the article on the date it was nominated for deletion. Now that the - sourced! - history section has been removed, it's now a worse article. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I wonder if the article has been degraded in order to make it appear less viable. It needs building up, not taking apart. And we shouldn't be held to ransom against one editor's arbitrary deadline. That's not how Wikipedia works. As a next step I suggest we put the sourced information back in and work out a plan to improve it from there. Bermicourt (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer and Bermicourt: no history, or sourcing, was removed. It was simply merged to the part of the article that it related to. It is still there. It seems neither of your noticed that the history section, and thus 100% of the sources in the article, relate only to card solitaire? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history and sourcing was removed from the article. There is no reason why information can't be on multiple articles, and the fact that it relates to card solitaire is, in my mind, irrelevant. I would restore the history section and focus on building the page out. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look more carefully. It was added back by Bermicourt two months ago, just 11 minutes after it was merged into the parent article. So it is all still here. The only change is that it was moved into the area of the article that it related to. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to open an WP:RM to suggest renaming the article to One-player tabletop game. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire#Side discussion, it seems the only reasonable scope for a non-dictionary version of this article. It would include most Puzzles and List of board games#Single-player board games.

Is anyone aware of an alternative scope that could work for an encyclopedic article in this area? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that you need to demonstrate that 'one-player tabletop game' is a more common construct than 'solitaire' in the literature. Currently Google can only find 8 hits on the web for that name and none in WP:RS.

It seems that your underlying aim is to get rid of the title of this article for reasons that haven't yet become clear. Bermicourt (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is certain – because "solitaire" is literally never used for puzzles like jigsaws or tangrams, or for one-player versions of board games.

It seems your underlying aim is to keep an article with this title for reasons that haven’t yet become clear, primarily because you continue to avoid clarifying what you think the scope of the article is. My ideology here is that I think articles without clear scopes result in poor quality material for our readers.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my initial response below.

One-player tabletop game seems to be your definition in order to avoid calling these games "solitaires" but it is not a category used in the literature. It scores no hits on Google Books and only 9 worldwide on the web. Perhaps the real elephant hiding in the room here is WP:ENGVAR. "Solitaire" in North America almost always refers to one-player card games, confusingly often Klondike thanks to Microsoft using it totum pro parte for that one game. Meanwhile "solitaire" almost always refers to the game called in North America "peg solitaire". If you just don't like the word solitaire being used in that way, why not come out and say it? Bermicourt (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is incorrect. That is definitely not what I am interested in, and I have no view on it.

My priority is your disrespecting of a fundamental policy here - WP:NOT. Our project is not a dictionary, and so this article cannot and should not be about "the word solitaire". Either you don't understand this policy or you are willingly ignoring it. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: reverted my update to the caption of the image as above with the comment rv good faith edit; this type of game is not specifically English, nor is it "peg" solitaire, just solitaire.

I see that there is much discussion on what game is called "solitaire" but until a decision is made, the articles should be consistent with themselves: the type of solitaire with jumping tokens as opposed to cards is currently in the article peg solitaire and the board layout depicted is called English to contrast with European or other layouts.

Considering the justification, would anyone, including Bermicourt‬, object to my restoring the caption?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "solitaire" is used in various ways, but in the sense of a game generally refers to a game played by one person. Of course there are different types – card solitaire, peg solitaire, marble solitaire, mahjong solitaire – each of which, unsurprisingly, may be referred to simply as "solitaire". The image clearly depicts a marble solitaire. It happens to be by an English manufacturer, but calling it and English solitaire suggests there is a particular subtype which is peculiarly English. In fact, marble solitaires occur in Europe too, for example in France. Outside of North America, they are just called "solitaires", a type of clearance game. The boards have various configurations: in England and Germany they use a 33-hole configuration; in France and Sweden, a 37-hole board. However, they may be played on square, hexagonal, crosswise or "virtually any other tessellated grid of any order" (Parlett 2018). Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, @Bermicourt: I see your point of view that "marble solitaire" is a distinct term like "peg solitaire". I thought "marble" was used just to elaborate on the material used e.g. "a wooden solitaire board". In this case, I think it should still be consistent with other articles e.g. the article peg solitaire should give "marble solitaire" as a synonym. Alternatively, the caption could be "Peg solitaire played with marbles". Fundamentally, it is the same game. Otherwise, we would need a different term for each material the game is implemented in e.g. "bean solitaire".

I'm happy to leave out English if it's being too specific. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below a table summarizing the three possible scopes of this article. Please add or comment, as I propose to open an RfC to build consensus to identify what the scope of this article should be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently #2 and is also currently fine as it is. I really don't know why you're so concerned with this particular topic? SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is currently number 2 why have we not mentioned any other games other than those with the name solitaire? And if those are added (e.g. jigsaws, tangrams, 15 puzzle, Rubik's Cube) please bring a source (just one is fine) which describes this wider group of one-player tabletop games as forms of "Solitaire".

My concern is that this high trafficked article is of such embarrassingly poor quality, due primarily to currently being stuck with a dictionary-based scope (number 1) in contravention of our policies, that it makes our project look incredibly low quality.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the article can be improved and that doesn't need another discussion. Your issue seems to be primarily that you don't like the title. The article topic currently is games called solitaire. There is already a dab page for all meanings of the word solitaire including e.g. the gemstone. BTW there are sources for #3 - I've already mentioned David Parlett for a start. Bermicourt (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, thank you for confirming that you consider #3 ("games called solitaire") as the scope here.

There really are no sources that cover the scope of #3. Parlett is not describing these games as a genre. And as you know his quote above (followed by “Those of particular interest so far known to have been explored are detailed in Beasley's indispensable study of the game”) is a reference to John Beasley’s work specifically on Peg Solitaire (his terminology).

In case helpful to help us understand each other, see WP:WORDISSUBJECT and Wikipedia:GNG source criteria. This describes the sourcing requirement to establish whether a topic is worthy of an article in our project. So far we have zero sources which cover topic #3 above.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words; I haven't voted for any particular table option. In fact, the table is wrong - there are WP:RS - you just aren't willing to accept them and do any research to find more. Meanwhile I vote for improving this article. Do you? Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your words were The article topic currently is games called solitaire. We don’t need to refer to the table to discuss the issue with this, which is that there are simply no sources which describe that scope.

I cannot understand why you are prolonging this discussion by evading the central point. It is really a very disappointing experience. Every time we get close you then change the subject.

Do you have any sources that support your proposed scope for this article, or not? Empty claims are not enough - we need a citation with a page number. I have looked myself, many times now, and there are none. Why are there none? Because peg solitaire is a pre-set puzzle, like a rubix cube. It has about as much in common with solitaire mahjong, solitaire cards and solitaire dominoes as it does with a crossword or a sudoku. The suggestion that this set of games is a “type” is obviously untrue.

I have been waiting patiently for two months. Will you please now show your hand? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my life is not driven by Wikipedia and the demands of other editors who are unhappy with an article on a very common topic and don't want to accept the WP:RS able to support it. You are not judge and jury here set above others; you are one editor with the same privileges and limitations as the rest of us. I will get round to looking an improvements to this article in due course when the higher priorities in my life allow. Meanwhile it is open to you and other editors to make improvements to the article - I am not the only one who can do that. Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the book "Mathematical Solitaires and Games" which might be able to be used as a reference. Discusses Tower of Hanoi-type games. SportingFlyer T·C 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll bite: single-player non-card games are frequently referred to as "solitaire" games in academic mathematical and game theory journals such as [2] - and [3] talks about peg solitaire in the same context.

I'm similar to Bermicourt though in the sense I don't actually think there's anything that needs fixing here beyond generally improving the article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; these sources (including above) are helpful to move the conversation on. The three sources each refer to one of three games:

• Peg solitaire
• Lights Out (game)
• Tower of Hanoi

None of the sources describe a genre of games called solitaire, which is what our article is doing.

Are you suggesting the article should be about "all single player tabletop games" or only those ones that have been described as solitaire games? Bermicourt has been arguing for something different - that the game needs to include the term solitaire in the title (which, given the lack of sources, is a contravention of our WP:NOTDICT policy). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the history of this page is worth reviewing. Originally it duplicated the scope of our Patience article. Then in 2011 an editor merged it with our Patience article and created[4], without consensus, this dictionary definition version of the article.[5] It was simply a poorly executed merge.

This was explicitly criticized later in 2011 (see discussion at the top of this page), and then proposed to be merged with the DAB page in 2019. The 2019 discussion was as disappointing as this one - everyone had different ideas about what should be done, so nothing happened.

We have waited 12 years for a solution, and we just waited another 2 months at Bermicourt's request to no avail.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What we are waiting for is a consensus to work together to improve the article. Bermicourt (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will come either when new editors join the discussion (why I think an RfC is a good idea) or when editors in the current discussion deliver the sources that they claim exist. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're definitely out there. This artcle includes Minesweeper in the definition of the genre. This isn't a reliable source - bachelor's thesis - but does describe the genre. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer, the first source is describing only Single-player video games (it says Common solitaire games include video poker, Black Jack, Minesweeper, etc.)

The second is describing only Patience (game).

Neither are describing the purported wider genre.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the "all one-player tabletop" games topic a little further, I think there are just three types:

1. Puzzles: All pre-set problem solving challenges, from peg solitaire, to crosswords, to Tower of Hanoi
2. Single-player video games
3. Partially luck-based one-player games, where a set of cards or tiles is laid out and then solved. All card-games of this type are under Patience (game), and similar games exist with dominoes and mahjong.

An article about all of these types clearly does not work under the term Solitaire. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Solitaire (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]