Talk:Euchre

message: A recent edit to the first section that lists places where Euchre is popular added Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the list. This leads me to wonder, in what specific areas of the United States people play Euchre? We don't need a huge list of every single place, just a more specific and accurate description. I know that Euchre is played in the mentioned areas, as well as Indiana and Wisconsin, and is played as far south as Cincinnati. I think it would be more accurate to say that Euchre is played in the "Great Lakes Region" instead of "Midwest", since that term would imply the inclusion of places like Kansas and Missouri, but the Great Lakes already includes Western New York and Pennsylvania. Windsorwindsor1 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct in this. It would be nice to find a source saying so, though! William Pietri (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed this statement.  It says that Euchre is declining in popularity in the USA, but then it goes on to say that it's most predominantly played in some certain state.  If Euchre is declining in popularity in the USA, it naturally follows that the most predominant place that it is played in the entire world is not likely to be in the USA.  Plus as you say, it can't be sourced.  Plus, a following of the game in one particular state is not important enough (on a global level) to be in the opening paragraphs. Nzseries1 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true.  Let's say there are 25 people worldwide who play it in Year 50--20 in the US and 5 in Guineau-Bissau.  In Year 51, there are only 17 who play it in the US and 6 who play it in Guinea-Bissau.  In Year 52, it's 16 and 10, and in year 53 it's 14 and 12.  Even though it's declining in popularity in the US and actually gaining popularity in Guineau-Bissau, it's still predominantly played in the US.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To anyone that does not live in the states, Wikipedia came seem very Americentric. For example, in Australia, there is less of a following (it seems) of Euchre in Western Australia than say Tasmania. Why isn't this in the opening paragraphs as well? Even if the claims regarding followings on a per state basis are true, they aren't really important enough to appear in the first paragraph, as Nzseries1 says. But the fact of the matter is that this information is not sourced, and I doubt whether anyone really has tallied the relative popularities of what is mainly a folk game in individual states, and even if it was sourced, it is not the position in the article to say it. Emperor Dalek (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions where Euchre is played 

message: I live in Michigan and most people here learn how to play euchre before they reach grade 6 in school. I was always under the impression the game was derived from Bid Whist, though players don't bid on a number of tricks, per se but whichever team calls trump needs to take a minimum of 3 tricks (out of 5) to earn 1 point. Other empirical knowledge that's probably not appropriate for the article: the original game uses all four suits of 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K and A, but commonly only 9, 10, J, Q, K and A are used because that's half a pinochle deck. i.e. you get 2 non-standard 24-card euchre decks when buying a single pinochle deck, which typically ends up being less-expensive than destroying 2 poker decks for 2 'full' euchre decks (once you've used them for euchre, they're no good for poker because the 2,3,4,5 and 6 are essentially 'marked' by having a different amount of wear & tear). Most people who've never played with the 7s and 8s do miserably playing with a full euchre deck at first (alternate meaning/origin of the phrase "not playing with a full deck"?), because the extra 2 trump, and extra cards with which to ruff A and/or K non-trump leads to keep K or Q for later non-trump leads, drastically changes the 24-card strategy. Darr247 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard (32-card) versus 24-card Euchre 

message: As I said in my edit summary, I removed quite a lot of terms because they appear to be original research. The entries left are ones that I thought were unlikely to be challenged. I think it's better for us to have a short list until we can find some sources rather than trying to maintain an ever-expanding list full of colloquialisms. In my opinion, this is in line with Wiki's policies on original research, although obviously it's up for debate if someone wants to challenge my bold edit.
And to answer another editor's question, yes, I am trying to find sources. I actually thought it would've been easy to do so, but have not found anything so far that I think qualifies for WP:RS. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The good old ever-going debate again on what is and what isn't OR. You were not here in 2008. There's no American Euchre Federation to rule the game and establish parameters through which we could say this is it and this is not. Card games migrate from one place to another, so how to tell the difference between your Euchre and theirs ? The same happened on the Lobster War when you deleted things based on your believe that there isn't any reliable source out there. Bold ? Alright, why don't you go to the Poker page and start deleting the OR there ? C'mon, be bold ! Krenakarore TK 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So...did you have anything constructive to add here? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you forgot WP:NOTHOW. Krenakarore TK 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. I'm not trying to make this article read like any of the things in that list. I'm trying to make it read like an encyclopedic reference. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Original Research 

message: This article is rife with redundancies. The terminology section, for example, merely repeats terms already established in the "Deal" and "Play" sections. Speaking of which, those two sections are decidedly repetitive. (And the "Play" section also contain a bit too much advice-type material, but I digress.) seems we need to go through the article and trim repetitive material. oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancies.  

message: How? 120.17.87.11 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chating with players 

message: There is a statement in the "Origins and popularity" section that reads;
:"Eucre is briefly mentioned as early as 1810 by Piomingo, a Chickasaw chief, being played..."
I find this statement—and the reputed sourcing—very suspicious, as our card-playing Indian chief had been dead for about 11 years at that time. Perhaps someone with the book can re-verify, or remove, as they see fit. Pinging . Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 22:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ... but they may publish a book posthumously. That is one explanation, but having reviewed the source, I think it may be a different person from the one described in the Piomingo article in Wikipedia (assuming that is right). His book does not call him a Chickasaw chief, but a headman and warrior of the Muscogulgee Nation. So I've changed the text and also added a link to the book so you can read it for yourself. Bermicourt (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to other sources Piomingo was in fact author John Robinson writing under a pseudonym. I have added this in square brackets to the source reference. It doesn't alter the fact that Eucre was being played in the US as early as 1810 and probably earlier. Meanwhile Jucker is testified in the German Palatinate in 1792, so could still be Euchre's ancestor. Bermicourt (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead men tell no tales...