Talk:Buck buck

message: Mix in a carriage return once in a while.
Great comedian named Bill Cosby had this as one of his jokes involving Fat Albert. -71.224.19.29 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

message: This article was unsourced and essay-like for quite some time (focusing on game strategy, etc.). In Janaury 2010, I tagged it for additional references and as an essay. I added a citation to the relevant entry in the Dictionary of American Regional English. Since then, no new sources were added, so I removed the unsourced material and added in some additional material from the one source I found. Any future additions would best serve the article by being sourced to a relaible source when they are added. Novaseminary (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: What kind of source is needed for this removed edition to be recovered? An interview with the painter? Jotamar (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would also probably be original research. The fact needs to have been previously said in a reliable source so the fact satisfies WP:V. Novaseminary (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't consider the University of Waterloo a reliable source? Jotamar (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference was a photo of a painting, and that was it. I don't doubt that was the painting. It was the synthesis/original research that fails WP policy. Novaseminary (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I probably wouldn't disagree with removing the photo currently in the article. Regardless, the fact you are trying to insert is original research, or at least not sourced properly. Get a reliable source that says as much, and there is no problem. Remember, verfiability is what matters, not just whether the fact you are trying to insert is correct (WP:V). Novaseminary (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point by Alcuin518. But my point is: what exactly do we need as verifiable source? Perhaps someone who saw the painting and thought that looks a lot like buck buck and then bothered to write that in some kind of printed media? Or is it more like someone doing a long research and arriving to the conclusion that the children in the painting are playing buck buck? Should the one who makes the statement be an art expert, or maybe a Renaissance expert, or a games expert, or all at the same time? In other words, should an overwhelming evidence count as such only if someone bothers to state it in some media external to Wikipedia? Jotamar (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, overwhelming evidence (in your or my opinion) does not meet WP:V (it is original research). A reliable source, external to WP, stating as much is needed to satisfy WP:V. Novaseminary (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I am not criticising anything. But this fact (as is) fails a fundamental policy of Wikipedia (which doesn't make it wrong or bad, just not appropriate for a WP article). Please read WP:OR and WP:SPS. If you have a problem with WP:OR, this is not the place to argue it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for painting 

message: I have taken the liberty of merging that article with this, as the two obviously both concerned the same game. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with High Cockalorum

message: A proposal has been made to merge the Swedish game bulleribock here. I strongly disagree, since the only similarities is that is has something do with backs and that both names include something like "buck". Sjö (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the merge tag, it was included by an IP editor who didn't even give a reason for it. --Jotamar (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from Bulleribock 

message: Never heard of this game before. Is this some kind of Leapfrog?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.183.52 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leapfrog