Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the board game Monopoly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of the board game Monopoly[edit]

Peer review can be found here.

This is the third article I have brought to FAC, and another true collaboration. Derek Ross must be given a lot of credit for expanding the history section of the original Monopoly (game) article. In doing some research of my own, I also expanded the section to the point where I thought it best to fork off the section into its own article, and thus reduce the size of the main article. "History of the board game Monopoly" has recently reached 38K in size, which is, I think, a testament to the amount of material available on the game. I have acquired many of the sources myself, to use as proper references (including four books by Philip Orbanes, one of which I've owned since it was first published in the 1980s, and even a self-published book on the game's early history, which can be purchased by contacting its author, or finding it on eBay). There are now eighty-four references covering the game's history over the last century. I have also added four images to the page (the patent reproduction image "came with the move"), all of which have proper fair use rationale. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as far as I can see it satisfies all criteria. Nice intro, flows well and negotiates the story well.Cas Liber 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Kudos to those who contributed to the article. Obviously a lot of work went into it; the writing makes the content lucid. There are many references and more or less appropriately frequent and helpful links. I would suggest adding a couple of more links, but otherwise it's exemplary. 70.101.175.246 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did I not sign in? Sorry. This is not a vote, but a clarification of who submitted the above one. Good article, by the way. Gracenotes T § 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting suggestion. I did not want to make the article "too blue" or "too red" (there are a handful of "red links" which someone might object to...). Which specific names/phrases/etc. would you recommend further links to? --JohnDBuell 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Looks like you went ahead and did them. :) --JohnDBuell 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After this was discussed during Peer Review, it's been left at its current name. I disagree that History of Monopoly is unambiguous, and the current title is perfectly clear. --JohnDBuell 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at the Peer Review and fail to see how it was discussed. The Peer Review is an exchange between you and two other users: one comment with a series of replies. The initial comment says nothing about the title; you mention it in your third response and there is no reply to this. Even if it had been discussed extensively, it would not shut off any discussion here.
The title is clearly ambiguated by the capitalised "Monopoly" without the need to mention it being a board game. Think about this the other way, would you also accept History of the economic concept monopoly? --Oldak Quill 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure (but not positive) that, per convention, the article should be titled History of Monopoly (game). -- Kicking222 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OldakQuill: The discussion about the title was brought up during peer review, and was covered on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly. True no consensus was reached between two of us, but I thought it best to leave it alone with no other votes. And yes I would support the latter, though actually that would probably be a jumping off point to monopolies that were broken up, such as History of the Standard Oil monopoly, History of the U.S. Steel monopoly, etc. I did not like long titles at first, but I do see where they make the topic abundantly clear, which I think WP:TITLE summarizes nicely.
Kicking222: Valid point. Unfortunately I don't see anything under WP:TITLE for sub-pages. I've worked on a number of pages dealing with Science Fiction, and there aren't really any standards as I could see; I just created pages with logical titles, and sometimes long ones. I would not be averse to putting FAC on hold to allow for a discussion on the article's talk page via WP:RM. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the page History of monopoly, which differentiates between Monopoly and monopolies (with respect to x, of course). The redirect from History of Monopoly makes sense, since only when capitalized is monopoly a game, but I'm wondering if this Monopoly redirect mess, if any, can be elucidated, and if I helped, or hurt. Gracenotes T § 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually thought about making JUST that kind of disambiguation page when it first was brought up, though I fell ill and was not on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Well done. I don't know either if that will help settle the dispute though. :) --JohnDBuell 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point that I don't consider the discussion to have been dealt with either in the PR or on the article talk page. I tried to be bold and move it, but was reverted, and that amounts to little else but a lack of consensus. The current title is awkward and cumbersome. It seems to have been chosen because it looks good in the lead (there are better alternatives for that), not because it's an intuitive title.
Peter Isotalo 15:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I have stated that I agree there is no consensus, and I have stated that I am more than willing to allow the article title discussion continue elsewhere. I have started an RFC (it seemed the most appropriate). Please feel free to vote under any of the proposals on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly#Discussion of article title. Please don't feel that I'm ignoring your opinion or anyone else's, I'm simply choosing to disagree. --JohnDBuell 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current lead focuses a little too much on the patent/invention issues. It should summarize the information on the localized versions, championships, and other things the article covers as well. Andrew Levine 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the article should make some mention of the spinoff games Parker Brothers made in the 1980s, including Free Parking, Boardwalk, and Don't Go To Jail. Andrew Levine 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intro - revised. The spin-offs are in there, and dated, under Localizations, licenses and spin-offs. The spin-offs that have articles are wikilinked. --JohnDBuell 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about the second lead paragraph being too long now. If necessary, the last line, about Hasbro's website only mentioning Charles Darrow, could be moved to the end of the Anti-Monopoly vs. General Mills Fun Group section. I think it would fit fine right after the sentence about Anspach's book. --JohnDBuell 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Really Like Qaanaaq 08:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. Rlevse 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nice article, but I don't like the images which displays Monopoly sets on a bed sheet. It's really unprofessional. It would be better if taken on a white background. CG 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a large white background at my disposal, nor could I find a free alternative. If anyone would like to try to edit out the backgrounds using a photo program, feel free. --JohnDBuell 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the title is non-standard and would be better as History of Monopoly. I could also live wth History of Monopoly (board game). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:RM doesn't seem to fit, I'm starting an RFC at WP:RFC/HIST. --JohnDBuell 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a great piece of work, but a featured article cannot have a needlessly contrived name. Will support if the name is changed to "History of Monopoly." Andrew Levine 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • History of Monopoly could be misconstrued as refering to the history of the practise of real world monopolies... Fieari 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could only be misunderstood in Crappy English, which isn't supposed to be the language choice to begin with. / Peter Isotalo 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If it's History of Monopoly, which monopoly would it refer to? Yes, this will confuse people, though it may seem obvious to us. As far as I'm concerned, objecting to the name on this basis is non-actionable. Rlevse 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's obviously actionable; the action required is a simple page move. And there's no confusion over the name, since nobody will think it refers to, say, the Standard Oil monopoly if it doesn't have Standard Oil in the title.Andrew Levine 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously a name change is something that can be acted on - I just worry about the precedent that is being set. Several titles were recommended for History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), but nobody voted object just over the title - I've been back through the Peer Reviews and FA candidacies. --JohnDBuell 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where were the other titles proposed there? I had trouble finding mention of them. The reason nobody objected is that nobody thought that the title "History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)" was substandard. Anyway, I don't see what's so bad about a precedent for having clear titles in FAs, since the article's mame is the first impression we leave on the reader. Andrew Levine 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The only problem with your objection is you're basically saying you'll object until it is the name you want, which isn't fair because reasonable people can disagree about what the best name would be. I have to agree that History of Monopoly is potentially confusing. A lot of titles are capitalized so in a title, capitalizing alone is not enough to clearly designate it as a proper noun. But the point is that can be discussed on the talk page. Objecting because it's not the title you prefer isn't proper. - Taxman Talk 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I concur with Taxman. 'History of Monopoly' seems needlessly confusing. Raul654 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure Andrew is objecting until the article has a name he wants. He's objecting to a name that seems out-of-sync with naming convention and has stated he will be happy with a few alternatives. --Oldak Quill 11:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment The proposed names and voting are on the talk page of the article. And sorry, but I have to agree that objecting solely on the name is a bad precedent. 140.32.73.19 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great article, and once the name is changed, it will be even better. --andrewI20Talk 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Two minor notes: more pictures would be nice, and note section should be renamed references. But I have a major problem with references: The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, a major reference of the article, is a self-published book (see Xlibris). I'd like to see this ref discussed, and preferably replaced/supplemented with proper peer reviewed sources. Once this is done I'd be happy to support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the books I've used are "self-published" but any of them have flaws. Brady's book told only the "Charles Darrow invented Monopoly" story, as did Gyles Brandreth's. Subsequent works, however, like Orbanes's just published book, build on these (including Anspach's and Sadowski's) and expand further. I've tried to make this article a reflection of all sources, and I HAVE indicated where published sources disagree (like Brandreth and Orbanes). Further, Prof. Anspach himself has told me that his book (now under the title Monopolygate) is being made into a documentary, and may be re-published by a firm other than Xilibris soon.
As far as pictures - I don't have access to any of the antique (pre-Parker Brothers) boards - apparently a number of them are kept by Forbes in New York City. What I've been able to submit I've done from my own collection. Do you have any specific suggestions of anything I could submit, or request from other collectors (provided they are willing to do CC-licensing)? --JohnDBuell 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added images of the first pages of Magie's second patent application, and Darrow's patent application, taken from the USPTO website, and converted to PNG. --JohnDBuell 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be great to get the antique edition photos, an easier thing to do would be to include some (perhaps as a gallery on Commons) of 'theme' editions - like Star Trek Monopoly and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of the boards submitted on the List of licensed Monopoly game boards are mine. I'll try to arrange some and add a photograph by this weekend, in a manner similar to the U.S. Standard Editions and International Editions photographs I've already posted. --JohnDBuell 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly&oldid=1066816471"