Talk:Concentration (card game)

message: ... can be found in this paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(93)90355-W
Maybe I find some time in the future to add it, or if someone else wants to, please, be my guest :-) Isomorphismus (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics behind the optimal strategy for two players 

message: I don't know if this should be included, but I've seen it be an issue for folks making similar games online:
* "Memory®" is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.45.187 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a trademark of Ravensburger licensed to Hasbro. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hasbro]] proprietary 

message: I am merging this with Pelmanism. ≠ Morganfitzp 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with this (2½-year-old) merge because the word "Pelmanism" has become synonymous with "Concentration," Pelmanism is much older and broader than the card game. A great page with lots of primary resources can be found here: . It may be time to bring the Pelmanism article back from the dead. 68.161.26.82 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I would agree -- If you ahve info just go to the redirect page (if it redirects here click the link back to it at the top of this page) and make your edits. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you: that is three of us and I will get something done within a few days. The trouble is this thing has been around about a hundred years but its origins are quite hard to understand.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this page by searching for Pelmanism, and had never heard of it being called Concentration.  The rules (yawn) as they'd been set out in the article are sooooo wordy!  Still need a lot of lightening up. Boscaswell talk 08:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Concentration|Pelmanism]] merge

message: It seems OK to delete a dozen links by various authors gathered over a long time period. Years ago Wikipedia was a place where it was valued when someone added information. At that time deleting valuable information was seen as vandalism. This has changed: Now Wikipedia is dominated by people who remove / delete information. The most respected people now are the ones who delete most. This discourages people and writers are scared away. I guess that this paragraph will also be removed... Glass Tomato (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the issue that only non-commercial external links are permitted? Perhaps this query should be taken up with a Wikipedia administrator for clarification and further treatment. I think Glass Tomato did us a service by preserving the external links (see following comment). -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please just go read WP:EL and WP:SPAM if you have any questions. The links were removed because they do not meet our rules. Links are for ENCYCLOPEDIC purposes, not to be a web directory wannabe or provide free ads for places to play games or whatever. We're here for information, not entertainment. Those links were not "valuable information" and removing them is not "vandalism" (see WP:V before using that word incorrectly). Boscaswell talk 08:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I just copied the list of the 12 removed links, such that everybody can see if they are really valuable or not. I expected that for every removed link some reason is added to justify the deletion. Now I see that no real justification is given (on a case by case base which stays in the discussion page) and there is the effort to remove the traces (except for the history) also. Now people need to look at the history to see what has been removed at the main page. In my view discussion pages do not have the same standard of what is allowed as the main pages. That way it is possible to discuss things that could be added or removed. When parts of discussion pages are deleted the discussions are killed as well. It is extremely unfair to kill discussions. It seems that some censorship even starts to take place at the discussion pages. It is not a sign of a discussion culture when the arguments of people with different opinions are removed. Glass Tomato (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, Glass Tomato.  Wiki is ruled by rule fascists who often think they know everything, but don't, and are only to happy to quote WP:BLABLABLA back at you to prove their pointless point. Boscaswell talk 08:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletionists took over Wikipedia

message: Aside from the trademarked game by Hasbro noted above, where in the English-speaking world is this game known as "Memory" as opposed to "Concentration"? I know it as the latter from my childhood in the 1950s U.S.A., but need to know the contemporary distribution of the two names (and for that matter, "Pelmanism"— which is utterly unfamiliar to me). -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Southeast England, 1950's and 60's) We used to call the game "pairs" and play it with a standard pack of playing cards: a pair was two cards of the same denomination and colour. SaundersW (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: By what name do you call it now?  To me, "pairs" is the usual name of the game, whether played with standard playing cards or some other kind or which of the various versions with standard cards is played.  "Memory game" is another common name. -- Smjg (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I (in southern England) have always called it 'memory pairs'. Algebraist 12:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: (midwest USA) If you call it "Concentration" I'd expect to see a rebus behind the pairs, because of Concentration (game show). "Memory", on the other hand, makes me think of the Milton Bradley kids game which had pictures of animals and shapes to be matched. That same game played with regular playing cards? I never even considered the possibility until I followed the link to Concentration (game) in your question. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In southern England (with midlands influence) we just called it 'memory' or 'the memory game', sometimes 'pairs'. 'Concentration' was a different game we learnt at Guides, involving rhythm and sitting in a circle. No cards. Concentration... Concentration has begun. Feel the rhythm... Slap clap click click. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: We called it "pairs" but I heard someone call it "Kim's Game",which is not quite accurate IMHO hotclaws 12:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Memory" vs. "Concentration" 

message: Was on this page:
with a comment: "Pairs" had been seen on the Yemenia website as a misspelling for "Paris"
I'm removing it on these grounds:
* A typo on one website doesn't warrant this.  Most people know the name of the city, and won't blindly c&p it into the search box - or if they do, they'll realise the error quickly.
* Since it doesn't state how anybody might arrive here while looking for a city in France, it's puzzling.
* Pairs doesn't even redirect here, so it's implausible that someone would mistype "Paris" and end up here.
— Smjg (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dablink to Paris 

message: There should be a mention of Husker Du, the commercial board game, which has the exact same rules as Memory or Concentration.67.122.209.120 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husker Du? 

message: I'm currently looking for appropriate translations for the name of this game.
I know it in french as "Memory" (the English word), but the french article ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_(jeu) - which references the Ravensburger game) doesn't link to this one as a translation.
When I tried adding it, it turns out I can't... After further investigation, and I have no idea how these links works, it seems these two both talk about the same thing yet are not linked together, with certain languages like German having two separate articles about essentially the same thing:
* https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20825866
* https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1504111
So the French article links to the German article that doesn't link to this article, and since there's a different German article that links to this article, the French one can't be linked. This is confusing and doesn't make sense to me. castiboy (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other languages?