Template talk:Game theory

message: I removed existence of NE from the list of theorems.  There is already a sketch of the proof at Nash equilibrium and I don't think there is much more to be said.  If there is enough to warrant an article, I'd be happy to add it back in.  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theorems

message: I think the linkage between the AT and game theory is a bit tenuous, and especially there is nothing in the AT article that creates that linkage. So I'm not sure if we should leave it in, even though the list of theorems is pretty short as it is. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's definitely on the border of game theory.  Perhaps Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is closer, but even that isn't exactly game theory.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it off, and also the Guess 2/3 of the average link, which is listed at List of games in game theory but at best maginally notable ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arrow's Theorem]]?

message: Someone ought to look at adding dynamic game balancing to the template.  I don't even know if the article is valid or not, but if it is, it needs to be added since it's almost an orphan right now. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more of a computer game thing, so I pointed that project at the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dynamic game balancing

message: Pareto efficiency is listed as a solution concept. I guess that's because it's sometimes used as part of equilibrium refinement? Anyway, I'm thinking to remove it, since it's not really a solution concept (unless I'm missing something), and the Pareto efficiency article isn't currently helpful in providing context. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pareto efficiency 

message: I removed the second link for it. --Rajah (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signaling game listed twice

message: Perhaps we should link to articles on some of the established game theorists - Nash, von Neumann, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.160.200 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Theorists 

message: Can we include the the Monty Hall problem or is the format incorrect for "game theory" since there is only one player? JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monty Hall problem 

message: Nash bargaining game, listed here under "games", links to a redirect to bargaining problem, which we list here under "classes of games". Do these really differ such that we need separate entries, and if not, which should we keep?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMog (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bargaining problem vs. Nash bargaining game 

message: Repeated games are mentioned on the template—shouldn't n-player games also be included? —Perceval 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  n-player games 

message: I am not sure whether abstract strategy games belong here at all (or under something like combinatorial game theory somehow),
but I think it is not at all helpful that they are all mixed up with other games.
Does anybody want to subdivide this part of the box?
PJTraill (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate [[abstract strategy game]]s from others