Talk:Diplomacy (game)

message: It appears there was a second print run before the Games Research edition in 1961, after the initial 500.  (I own a copy.  It is not one of the numbered 500, and with the exception of a second staple on the rulebook, the rules are identical to the initial print run as represented by the #1/500 copy that went on sale with Calhamer's estate.  The pieces are not in their own small box, but are in plastic bags, and sit in recessed areas at the edges of the box).
Unfortunately, I can't even imagine what secondary sources you could find at this point, so this veers into original research territory. (I'd be tempted to say that I could provide a picture of the original box cover, but I'm unsure the initial 500 even had a box cover - the Calhamer estate copy didn't seem to have a box, at least the auction photos I've found never show box art). 
::2600:1702:1CA0:9680:93AB:1AB0:C6E1:361D (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions

message: We all know the traditional 1914 variant, but is there a WW2 variant of dilomacy? I would expect some territory shifting but is there a site with a good picture of the map?
-G
Lewis Pulsipher ( see Board Game Geek)published a wonderful WW2 variant many years ago. I have hard copy only. It includes aircraft, and lots of other interesting innovations, yet still with the same mechanics. Balanced ? Maybe not..but lots of fun ! He also did something similar for a "realistic" WW1 Feroshki 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1941 variant?

message: The map shown on the page is not correct, Finland does not border on Barents Sea in the game. Instead Norway and St. PetersBurg border, which they seem not to on the map shown.
I´ve changed the map for one that is according to such corrections. It looks much better, as well. Doidimais Brasil 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
: The new map is much better, thanks. --Fritzlein 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect map 

message: I removed the section linking to Global Diplomacy; it seemed silly to have two sections headed "Variants", one of which singled out a specific one of the hundreds of variants to link to. It would probably be a good idea instead to write up individual pages for the more popular Dip variants and list them, but that'd be a fairly hefty undertaking. Psmith 15:01, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants section 

message: I edited the introductory sentence to read that the game is set "at the beginning of Word War I".  Before it read that the game was set "at the beginning of the 20th century", and now it says that it is set "at the turn of the twentieth century, prior to World War I".  I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am explaining why I think one should say the game is set in 1914, not 1901.  I am open to discussing the issue, but if no one responds, I will revert the article to my previous wording.  I think it is clear that the game, so far as it has a historical setting, draws its inspiration from World War I.  Additionally, the map on the board show Europe roughly as it was in 1914.
What reason do we have for believing that this is a turn-of-the-century game, as opposed to a World War I game?  The only evidence that I know of is that game years are traditionally numbered starting in 1901.  But as far as I understand, this is pure convention, adopted from the play-by-mail community.  Game years seem not to be a part of the historical simulation, but rather a notational convenience.  It would be odd if a simulation of Europe at war had a typical running time of 1901 to 1912, given that Europe was not at war at that time!  If the game can be said to have a historical setting at all, that setting must be World War I, not a decade prior.
Peace, --Fritzlein 03:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation  states that the first set of orders are in Spring, 1901. So, this is the official line. porge 23:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1914 or 1901? 

message: The map is neither precisely accurate for 1914 nor 1901, but is closer to 1914.  Calhamer adopted the "first turn = Spring 1901" convention in an early revision. (I think this was between his 1958 self-publishing and the 1961 Games Research Inc. publication, but I'm not certain.)  In my opinion the current text "set at the start of World War I" is sufficient, as (according to his past articles) this was indeed the intended diplomatic context for the gamestart situation.Barno 18:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamestart year 

message: I added text to some of the external links, added a link for the Diplomatic Corps website [warning:  I was responsible for this site 1999-2004], and made link formats more consistent.  Also corrected a spelling error in an earlier section. Barno 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links cleanup 

message: I see we have some back-and-forthing between American English and British English spellings.  The game was invented by an American and rights to it are currently owned by an American company.  Furthermore, the earliest version of the article that's listed in the history is this one, which uses "favorable" (the only instance I noticed of a choice between AE and BE).  Given these factors, Wikipedia policy calls for use of AE.  I suggest we settle on AE, make it consistent, and avert future reverts. JamesMLane 11:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of English

message: Who makes this board game and do they have a official website?
--Joel M. 18:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
:The "History" section mentions the succession of corporate owners.  The official website is less informative than many of the others, but I think your suggestion is a good one, because its connection to the current game publisher gives it a privileged status.  I'm adding it to the list of "External links". JamesMLane 02:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: damn its been screwed up for a long time. doex anyone know why it got screwed up/when it will be fixed?
How is it screwed up? Seems to work ok for me, and I am now in the process of taking over its maintenance too. Millis 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: variant bank

message: The earlier version of this article stated that Diplomacy is a game for seven players, but the rules allow for fewer. With six, Turkey is removed from the game. With five, Russia is removed. I have played Diplomacy with fewer than seven players many times, and it seems to work quite well with four or more.
(Above comment was by editor User:Aetherling.)
:Actually the 6 players' adaptation removed Italy, wich became neutral but armed (units hold) and the 5 players' one did the same also with Germany (starting in 1801). The rulebook suggested other possibilities for even less players, even one for just 2, useful only to practice, as there is no possible diplomacy. But, as Barno mentions below, they weren't very much playable. When you have less or more than 7 people, it's much better to play a variant designed expressely for that, like Ancient Mediterranean for 5 players or Hundred (Hundred Years' War) for three, all them available for Realpolitik. --Sugaar 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I don't believe any reliable sources have written about full-map less-than-seven variations, either in the context of educational play or casual just-for-fun play.  I doubt that such an article section (or standalone article) could be written without violating the no original research policy which is core to Wikipedia.  You might develop such an article and have it published by the hobby flagship fanzine Diplomacy World ( www.diplomacyworld.net ) instead of trying to get it into Wikipedia. Barno 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of players 

message: *I added "(in most details)" to the explanation of it being the 1914 boundaries on the map.  I don't have references at hand (I'll search later), but there are at least one or two bits of detail which aren't 1914.  I believe one was whether Finland is part of the Russian home territory or has a thick line between Fin and StP.  One fact that's not timely for either year is the neutral supply center in Tunis (which ought to be named Tunisia to be consistent with other neutral SCs) -- it was a French protectorate from 1881 to 1956.  Barno 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 1901 vs. 1914 

message: *An editor has added a "citation needed" tag for the claims that Kennedy and Kissinger were fans of Diplomacy.  I know those claims have appeared in Avalon Hill promo material since I learned the game in the 1970s.  A Google search shows that Hasbro uses (used?) the terms in newer promo, but I can't check that from work right now since Websense blocks it.  Nothing else in the search results seems to be directly relevant.  Can someone find anything other than the manufacturer's claims to support the mention of Kennedy, Kissinger, or for that matter Walter Cronkite?  (Cronkite was also mentioned in Seventies promo for Dip.)  205.247.102.130 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just change the article to say that AH claimed in their marketing that the  game was played by JFK etc. Jooler 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *True, but that has less sizzle and less encyclopedic significance than citations that they actually played/liked it.  I'll look into it more when I get time.  Barno 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've found mention of an article with Kissinger's claim, and cited the issue (it's not online, so I don't have the article name or page number yet).  I've e-mailed Alan Moon, who for awhile was AH's main guy for Diplomacy, and asked whether their sources were personal letters or interviews or books.  Until we have more, I've revised the text to refer to AH's claims rather than saying "it was" or "supposedly".  I also added Cronkite since he was mentioned either in the catalog or the back cover of the box.  "citation needed" until we get facts.  Barno 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alan Moon couldn't help, as he was there only later (something like 1979-83), but he pointed me to Don Greenwood who was in charge of most Avalon Hill stuff in the Seventies.  I've e-mailed Don, and if he provides any information, I'll update the article.  Barno 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Greenwood reports that the claims predate his tenure at AH, and may have come from when the game was published by Games Research Inc.  Apparently one of the mainstream magazines such as LOOK or LIFE published the claims in the 1960s.  I haven't identified whether the GAMES & PUZZLES article cited the earlier mentions or had a new article.  I intend to clean up this section's phrasing soon.  Barno 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Barno, Blake Eskin researched the Kissinger/JFK claim in connection with that article he did a few years ago and couldn't find any support for it. I don't have immediate access to the link, but I think you know how to find it...if not, email me and I'll try to dig it up. (WP will say I'm an anonymous IP user, but I think you'll remember me as Landru).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.99.34.70 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can't find anything in the citation about this. Here is a link to the 1973 May edition of Games and Puzzles -- no mention of Kissinger that I can find. https://archive.org/details/sim_games-and-puzzles_1973-05_13/page/n9/mode/2up 19:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kissinger, JFK claims 

message: "They often get drawn into a conflict in the Balkans (home of four neutral supply centers) and then find themselves with no friends."
What is this supposed to mean? I don't think this holds any substance. A better sentence would be "Because Austria is most vulnerbale to allied attacks early on, it is difficult for Austria to find peace with bordering neighbours due to this vulnerbabilty."Gagueci 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the whole texts on the powers, for better I think. Most of them wasn't neither sufficiently neutral nor informative. For instance, following your criticism, Austria normally has an unconditional ally in Germany and often another one in Italy and the A-R-T triangle is not necessarily bound to be solved against AH, it depends. Also Austria is a powerful country with more victories and survivals than Germany for instance , . --Sugaar 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria 

message: 
Feel free to edit.
The freddinator 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: I was looking through the links under "Where to Play" and noticed that many of the links were to foreign-language sites. Seeing as this article is from the English Wikipedia, shoudn't the links be to sites in English? WP:ILL states that inter-language links should only be used to link to pages in another language (on wikipedia) for which there is no current English equivalent. (Note, this WP guide applies to interlanguage wikipedia links, not to external sites, though I would assume the idea would still apply) The freddinator 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Where to Play" Links 

message: Where is the spam link on the links page I was fixing a link and it told me that I could not since the page was listed as Spam. I searched the SPAM file and could not find any sites that were contained in the edit.
B89smith 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link 

message: For those of you who are really, really into Diplomacy and Userboxes:
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Centy 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the naval ensign (blue "X" bars on white field) is the version actually used in the game, at least the most recent version. -Stellmach 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even More Userboxes 

message: Shouldn't the official versions be listed under software? --Logomachist 00:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the official versions be listed under software? 

message: Dont play this game, just surfing through, but I think that the part about santa is inaccurate. Can someone please remedy this?
"All units move simultaneously, with players santa writing down their moves during a negotiation period, and all moves are revealed and put into effect simultaneously."
Thanks. and I hope someone checks this enough to edit this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.52.110 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism; I had previously reverted but the vandal added it back.  It should be fine now.  If you are not sure about this things check the history of the page by clicking on the history tab above the article.  Thanks, Brusegadi 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: What do you think about  and ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.168.7 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot read French well, but the French Wikipedia article on the game (the first link) looks generally very good, with bits of game development history and fanzines and other goodies.  From what little I could puzzle out, I wonder if there might be some strategy-guide-type content that might be edited down.  It clearly wasn't as blatant as the "X should always ally with Y and attack Z first" stuff that has plagued this English-language article.  Two infobox questions:  Does "first edition" refer to the first French-language edition?  (I assume so, because the 1961 Games Research version is mentioned, and the locally-published 1958 edition might be mentioned; I don't have it open.)  Also regarding the infobox, "number of players" should possibly be just 7, not 4-7.  I'm not sure whether the current French rulebook has the variants for 4 to 6 players like the AH and Hasbro rules, but they're considered "real Diplomacy games" only in purely casual play, not in tournaments or most of the organized online groups or face-to-face groups. Barno 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second link, the Palmares article on fr.wikipedia, is excellent and informative, but lacks citations of reliable sources.  On en.wikipedia, now that a few years of getting the basics togther has allowed people to get more serious about attribution, there are editors who would nominate this article (if translated into English) for deletion because all the potential sources are fanzines or hobby websites.  Even hobby organization websites and hobby archive websites that hold a lot of the hobby's lore don't count for much against the reliable sources policy here.  If the French version doesn't hold articles to a similar standard, then I would support keeping that article there.  It well describes something of strong interest to a small number of people, and of mild interest to a few thousand people.  If that's enough notability for the French project, then the article seems good.  For the English project's standards, I'm afraid it would get killed as "gamecruft", and one or two sentences would get merged back to the game's main article. Barno 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In French 

message: I don't think there's any strategy guide material left in this article (I went and deleted it all myself, I should know), so I don't think it's appropriate to leave the tag there. The article itself still needs some work (adding citations, some cleanup etc.), but I'm satisfied there's no need for the strategy guide tag anymore. L337 kybldmstr 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article is much more encyclopedic and more concise.  That tag is no longer needed, and the tags that remain are still appropriate.  I can probably add a couple of sentences of generalization (not fixed patterns of play) about strategy, but at the moment it would be original-research synthesis and I don't want to encourage others to add uncited strategy stuff again. Barno 01:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy guide tag 

message: After much stuffing around (including the accidental creation of one or two pages which I've permitted to be SD'd), I *finally* made a to-do list, which should appear at the top of the talk page. Be sure to check it regularly for any updates, and please help do what needs to be done. Also, if you'd like to make a request that would benefit the article, feel free to do so here.  L337 kybldmstr 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1961 Games Research Inc board did not use different colors by Great Power.  There were depth isolines in the oceans with increasing darkness of white > light blue > medium blue.  The 1969 Avalon Hill board (the one in widest use when Diplomacy grew a postal hobby with 'zines and conventions) also did not color the Powers differently.  Green land spaces with brown indications of terrain; plain blue sea spaces.  Thicker black lines to separate countries and thinner black lines to separate provinces within a country.  I own a Dutch set from Parker which uses thick colored lines between countries, but the colors don't match those used on the Gibson's board.  ...  As for Tunis, all versions that I've seen use "Tunis" rather than "Tunisia"; this is known to be an exception to the generalization that non-home supply centers are named for the nation, rather than the city. Barno 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do 

message: I've rewritten the Game play section to make it neater and more encyclopaedic; I think it looks great now, but I'm not sure if it's totally acurate. Also, when can a draw be arranged? Because the section isn't clear on that. L337 kybldmstr 09:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game play

message: I can confirm that. The version produced under licence by Gibson's Games most certainly called it "Tunis", not "Tunisia" - indeed, I've never seen a board that did call it "Tunisia". AIUI the colours on the board differ in the Gibson's edition: the map is coloured "politically" with the following colours used for the various Powers: Austria - reddish brown; England - pink; France - blue; Germany - black; Italy - green; Russia - purple; Turkey - yellow; Neutral - orange. (Edited to clarify: those are the colours on the Gibson's board; AIUI they are not the original colours; as a UK resident I have seen only the Gibson's edition.Captain Pedant 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1961 Games Research Inc board did not use different colors by Great Power.  There were depth isolines in the oceans with increasing darkness of white > light blue > medium blue.  The 1969 Avalon Hill board (the one in widest use when Diplomacy grew a postal hobby with 'zines and conventions) also did not color the Powers differently.  Green land spaces with brown indications of terrain; plain blue sea spaces.  Thicker black lines to separate countries and thinner black lines to separate provinces within a country.  I own a Dutch set from Parker which uses thick colored lines between countries, but the colors don't match those used on the Gibson's board.  ...  As for Tunis, all versions that I've seen use "Tunis" rather than "Tunisia"; this is known to be an exception to the generalization that non-home supply centers are named for the nation, rather than the city. Barno 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tunis (citation needed)

message: I'm thinking that the Variants section should be trimmed down to include only variants which have been commercially released, since there are simply way too many fan-made variants to consider having subsections on them. That, and they're almost all NN anyway. L337 kybldmstr 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree the variants that have been posted also seem pretty arbitrarily picked, this section should be shorter.Jarrod Dominguez (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: :Image:Diplomacy box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Diplomacy box.jpg

message: I remember playing Gangs of London and there was a variation of this game on there.
I don't have the game any more so I'm not too sure, but it does ring a bell.--Chrisp6825 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this game might have been on "Gangs of London" for PSP. 

message: A user today removed the following paragraph, calling it "baloney":
Diplomacy is sometimes played in high school history classes because of its realistic emulation of events and diplomacy between nations. It helps students better understand the politics involved in World War I and World War II.
In fact this is true, but I'm at work and don't have sources handy.  Can someone find such a reference?  Over the weekend, if I'm around a computer, I hope to review the Richard Sharp book and find relevant mentions to cite for this and other points related to this article.  I'm sure there are other mentions, but most are in 'zines or forum posts.  I didn't add the removed text; I'm just working to include appropriate content without getting everyone's WP:OR in. Barno (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomacy in schools 

message: I think its worth mentioning that Diplomacy spawned a whole genre of Starcraft maps.  It seems to be limited to starcraft as well.  There are countless versions going back from the early days of Starcraft with diplomacy rune to the present with diplomacy infinity. and others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft Diplomacy 

message: I propose that the article on the book The Game of Diplomacy (linked from this article) be deleted for lack of notability. Discuss here. -- Meyer (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The Game of Diplomacy''' Notability 

message: The "Play online" section included two links that didn't also appear under "External links" so I added them. However, I think use of external links in this article needs to be reviewed in light of Wikipedia external links guidelines. My take on the guidelines as they apply here is as follows:
# Inclusion of external links should be discouraged in favor of references. That is, rather than including just a link with "here's such-and-such site", incorporate information from the site into the article and give the link in the form of a citation. → A lot of the article's external links can be converted to references.
# Where external links are called for, list them in the External links section rather than scattered in the article text. → Most of the "Play online" section (and others?) should go away (keeping the links in the External links section) unless it's rewritten to cite information appearing on the online play sites.
# Keep external links to a minimum. → Convert links to references, don't throw links away. External links section should be a list of sites that were not sources of information appearing in the article, but might be of interest to thoses wanting to learn more about the topic. 
-- Meyer (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with external links 

message: What do supply centers actually do? the article doesn't say. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind, changed section heading. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supply centers 

message: This is misleading. The game does not use randomization devices such as dice rolls or card draws. But it is a simultaneous-move game of incomplete information, and therefore
(i) the optimal strategies for players will normally involve randomization or deception
(ii) the outcome for any player will depend on the choices of others, which are (at least from their POV) uncertain. Hence, players can be lucky or unlucky.
Compare, say, paper-rock-scissors. Again, no randomization as part of the game, but, I would say, a player can be lucky or unlucky.JQ (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is that the determining factor is your skill at reading the other players, interpreting their overt language and their tells. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A standard game theory analysis says all this cancels out, leaving luck as a residual.JQ (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "absence of luck" description makes sense. First, it's colloquial luck, not requiring diving into game theory. Also, that game-theoretic analysis isn't the final word: Are the players playing in equilibrium? Are they boundedly rational? I think you could even appeal to Harsanyi or Aumann to argue that players might not be randomizing even in Nash equilibrium. Describing deception and other's choices being uncertain from my POV as "luck" is counter to the normal use of the term (even if we might model them that way). CRETOG8(t/c) 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete absence of luck? 

message: The web diplomacy map really sucks and is unreadable. Maybe we could use a Playdiplomacy.com map?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webdiplomacy 

message: I made a large Diplomacy map a while ago that I never used. Feel free to use it in the article or edit it as needed. Zhatt 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen all the map but there are already big eroors between lines of frontier between Germany and France or Austria and Italy (it's on the map the frontiers of today and not the frontiers of 1900). GabrieL (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Diplomacy Map 

message: Really now, neither of the relevant sections - or from a run of the search function any place in the article - seems to mention how you actually win the game or when it ends. Korn (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Diplomacy_(game)#End-of-year_and_supply_centers 185.24.185.195 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winning the game? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article makes good mention of the poor AI in computer programs, but no mention is made of the recent breakthrough AI CICERO. See e.g.
* https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meta-cicero-ai-agent-good-140029881.html
* https://gizmodo.com/meta-ai-cicero-diplomacy-gaming-1849811840
* https://cybernews.com/news/meta-cicero-beat-humans-diplomacy
Arguably the CICERO AI may deserve an article of its own, but either way it should be mentioned in the Diplomacy article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D6CB:6300:9D0C:8CE4:E408:C117 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also an article in Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade9097  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D6CB:6300:B41F:CD85:9B2B:9B07 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence on this with a primary and secondary source (secondary sources are generally more important btw). You can add more information with sources if it is notable. Maybe AI should be put in a different section, but there's not much notable information on it I think. Yodo9000 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  CICERO AI