Talk:Big two

message: For an informal game of this nature (lacking written resources), this article is more than adequately referenced and I've removed the lack-of-references notice. The way the game is played matches the consensus of wikipedians. Momolee 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did my character come out as garbage code or something?: Yes, exactly. —UTSRelativity 16:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: did my character come out as garbage code or something?
or unless i am mistaken in some timeline. 
i distinctively remember how it is called in Taiwan as what i edited.
consider it as slang or anything. i just thought it might be something to be taken note of because i believe that many will raise an eyebrow if its said otherwise. 
was it wrong to say it that way or something? Mint greentea 04:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: did my character come out as garbage code or something?: Yes, exactly. —UTSRelativity 16:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the naming of the game 

message: For games when there are only 3 players, either 17 cards are dealt to each person, with the last card (sometimes displayed) going to the person with the 3 of diamonds, or 13 cards are dealt to each player and the other 13 are just left on the side. 70.111.244.69 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and the other 13 are just left on the side... and when a player has to pass, s/he draws a card from the 13. 203.218.87.69 12:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneven numbered players 

message: Since there are so many versions of this game, someone should group the variations together by country to clean things up. 
*Also, the Straights explanation in the 5-card hands section is not consistent. (If an A-2-3-4-5 straight is ranked the highest, then a straight flush of the same sequence should be ranked the highest straight flush) One rank should be standard and the other a variant. I'll make the changes if I have time.
References to card counting in the variations section is removed as this terminology is only used for blackjack. Curbing card "tracking" is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, and just changes the nature of the game where it is less predictable. Momolee 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections are not helpful, please rely on categories and well-cited prose to explain the relationships rather than creating a see also section.  Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the first time I've seen edits arbitrarily deleted by self-righteous content masters. While I appreciate your vigilance against vandals, you and others like you are also removing well-intentioned work and discouraging contributions. It looks like Wikipedia is becoming the place where only the "perfect" may dwell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.241.47 (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variations 

message: Why is it called big two? What is being big? What is two? --Sonjaaa 07:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why big two?

message: Have I made an incorrect edit, or am I right in thinking that, given all my years of playing Choh dai di/big 2, that it is in no way a 53 card, but instead a 52 card game? How on Earth has such an egregious mistake persisted on the wiki? If for some reason I have been playing it incorrectly all these years please feel free to revert the change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections are not helpful, please rely on categories and well-cited prose to explain the relationships rather than creating a see also section.  Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the first time I've seen edits arbitrarily deleted by self-righteous content masters. While I appreciate your vigilance against vandals, you and others like you are also removing well-intentioned work and discouraging contributions. It looks like Wikipedia is becoming the place where only the "perfect" may dwell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.241.47 (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaring mistake?

message: I found several similar games in various article and I was attempting to link them to each other with a "See Also" section. Someone named "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is systematically undoing these edits without explaination. why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.241.47 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections are not helpful, please rely on categories and well-cited prose to explain the relationships rather than creating a see also section.  Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the first time I've seen edits arbitrarily deleted by self-righteous content masters. While I appreciate your vigilance against vandals, you and others like you are also removing well-intentioned work and discouraging contributions. It looks like Wikipedia is becoming the place where only the "perfect" may dwell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.241.47 (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: who is undoing my edits and why?

message: The picture doesn't have anything to do with Big Two, other than it being a scene of people playing card games in China, and that Big Two is also a card game played in China. The filename of the image is "People playing card games in the street" (does not mention Big Two) and there is no evidence that they're playing Big Two. --208.80.119.67 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Picture 

message: Rrrrrrr 203.91.115.52 (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fffffff 

message: I propose merging Pusoy dos into Big two. Pusoy dos is a minor variant of Big two and I don't think it merits its own page. There are very few sources for this as a stand-alone game. One of the citations here goes to an archived article that is not a WP:RS; the other goes to John McLeod's page for Big Two at pagat.com where he only gives Pusoy dos a couple of lines as a variant, not even a separate section. The essential differences can be added to Big Two without causing would  any article-size or weighting problems.Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: given the lack of objection and the clear case, I think that it would be fine for you or any other used to merge these. You might have more expertise than me to do this elegantly! Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal