Talk:Tables game

message: I think this section needs to be better organized, with clearer descriptions of some of the rules. Without a familiarity with how the games are played in these regions, there's only so much I can do. If you have anything to add to this section, by all means, please do :-) —ptk✰fgs 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Middle East and Central Asia

message: From sv:Brädspel: "Brädspel är också det svenska namnet på ett gammalt spel som spelas på samma spelplan som Backgammon, men med andra regler."
Now, I can't read Swedish, but the article looks to me like brädspel is the general name for what we call "board games". The sentence quoted above, however, looks like it is saying something along the lines of "brädspel is also the Swedish name for a game (played? something similar to?) backgammon (in the middle ages?)"?
Then there's this, at the Vasa Museum website. 
Is it a generic term, or a word for backgammon, or both? —ptk✰fgs 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I poked around some more and found this. It looks like the name of the game is "svensk brädspel". —ptk✰fgs 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like I'm just talking to myself here! —ptk✰fgs 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be quite common that the generic term "tables" in English and its equivalent in other languages (Swedish brädspel, Spanish tablas, German zabel, etc.) is used totum pro parte to refer to specific otherwise unnamed games, a bit like saying "they're playing cards" when they're actually playing a specific game called, say, [[Cribbage) and not a game called "Cards". Certainly in English sources we often read that people were "playing at tables" which just means they were playing a game on a tables board. Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brädspel 

message: I don't know what the source is for information on Georgia, but in my experience the version of backgammon they play there is equivalent to the western one. They just do not use the doubling cube, or (obviously) Jacoby rule or Crawford rule. Also, long nardi is played there by plenty of people. I am changing the article to reflect this. Brw12 02:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Narde

message: why no mention of Mancala here? Mancala games seem to me to be pretty darn similar to Backgammon games. Pieces go round a board, the aim is to get them all off the board off to one side, and capturing involves catching your opponent when they have a certain amount of pieces on a bar/in a pit. The only big differences are the use of seeding instead of dice and the distinguishing pieces based on position rather than color. I can't be the only person to notice this, surely? --81.129.137.170 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusual suggestion.  The consensus from Bell, Murray and other authors of game-books would be -i- Mancala is not dice-driven;  -ii- Mancala has a circuit where both players go ever onwards in the same direction but Backgammon has a horseshoe track where they go in opposite directions;  -iii- There are very few mancala-type games with as many as 24 pits etc -iv- Mancala games require the capture of opponent's pieces rather than the bearing off of one's own; -v- otherwise there may be some simlarities Salisbury-99 (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree it is a different family. I've added a 'see also'. David Spector 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mancala? 

message: I'm not sure what the English equivalent is to (French) Trictrac (Italian) Trich-trach, but this is apparently a Tables game dating to medieval Europe. Machiavelli mentioned it in his 1513 letter to Francesco Vettori. Wilhelm meis (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Trictrac is now a stand-alone article and with up-to-date links to David Levy's excellent website. Bermicourt (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trictrac 

message: It would be potentially quite informative to have a map of the middle-east / east mediterranean area showing the names for the game and the key variations. I do not have the skills to do this.
I will look at Murray to see if there are other games (eg Cows & Leopard variations for one example) where this would be interesting.Salisbury-99 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This is the same game as Backgammon. The two pages need to be merged and one of them turned into a redirect. Jobava-ro (talk page) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. As used by Murray and Parlett (and others) "Tables" designates a family of dozens of similar games, whereas "Backgammon" designates 1 of these games (currently the most popular one). We may well debate whether certain bits of information (especially the "History" section of Backgammon) might better be moved from one article to another, and whether certain statements ("Backgammon is one of the oldest board games known" -- no, Tables is) might be confusing the issue, but the territory implied by these 2 articles is distinct. It would be better for us to clarify, than to erase, that distinction. Phil wink (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to be merged with [[Backgammon]] 

message: The article currently says that "the only differences with modern backgammon" and Tabula is that Tabula has an extra die and the pieces start off the side of the board.  I have a hard time imagining that Tabula included a doubling cube, though.  If it didn't, then that should probably be mentioned as well (even if not everyone plays with it.  It's a commonly used difference, and that's the point.)  If it did... well then that seems worth mentioning, too, since the connection between the two games would be all the more certified.  Jmgariepy (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also doubt whether Tabula had a "roll again on doublets (or triplets?)" rule, but the rules are imperfectly known, and sources generally don't list the rules a game doesn't have. I seem to recall Tabula being reconstructed with pieces moving in parallel, which would be yet another difference from modern Backgammon. More work here is probably necessary. Phil wink (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabula vs. Backgammon?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tables (board game). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518141653/http://www.vasamuseet.se/Vasamuseet/Om/Vasamuseets%20vanner/Bradspelsvanner.aspx?lang=en to http://www.vasamuseet.se/Vasamuseet/Om/Vasamuseets%20vanner/Bradspelsvanner.aspx?lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've made a number of edits with the aim of being able to remove the hatnote about technical language. Essentially the article assumes a knowledge of backgammon rules and terminology, so I've made some simplifications, explanations and changes to address that.
I've also restructured the article by continent/region at the top level. The next level down is by country in the case of Europe or by game for other regions. That largely follows the original section headings because it makes sense to group under 'country' if that country has several games or by 'game' if it is the only game in a country or the game is played in several countries. Meanwhile Backgammon continues to have a section of its own, presumably because it's so widespread. I don't think this is too  much of a problem, but we can always restructure again as the article expands. Bermicourt (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical hatnote addressed and some restructuring 

message: Hi, I know Wikipedia usually prefers the singular form and I get that, but in this case we've gone around in a circle to when this was entitled "Tables (game)" which caused confusion because it looked like an article on the game of "Tables" (which was a real game) when in fact the article is about an entire family of games. Surely the title should be about the subject? If an article on the individual game of "Tables" were to be created, readers would become even more confused. My proposal is that we make an exception in this case and match the title to the article topic. Bermicourt (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is support for 's position at WP:Naming conventions (plurals) which reads: "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles... There are two main types of exceptions to this rule: [the first being] Articles on groups or classes of specific things." Plainly "Tables games" is a class of specific things. Now, there is some limit to this, as this convention still prefers "Dog" and "Car" over "Dogs" and "Cars" -- and I suppose the borderline is fuzzy. A good analog, though, might be the fourth example currently given, which recommends "Articles on particular language groups, as opposed to individual languages, are pluralized, such as Romance languages, Afroasiatic languages, Indigenous languages of the Americas, Sino-Tibetan languages." Phil wink (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from Tables games to Tables game