Talk:Rook (card game)

message: Suggest merge Rook (card game) and Rook playing cards. Snowman 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Many of the local variations documented here don't seem to be verifiable, e.g. Robinson Rook (supposedly "Popularized by the legendary Lamond "Hap" Robinson" of whom I could no find mention elsewhere), Woodson Patrick Rook, Stevenson Rook, Martin-Lawson Rook, Potts-Altimus Rook.  The information is also presented in a very inconsistent format.  I recommend that all these local variations be deleted.  Some of the linked sites do a much better job of describing the variations.  If variations are going to be mentioned on this page, they should be the official ones documented in sources like Rook in a Book, eg Kentucky Discard, 1-High Partnership, Dixie, Display, Boston.  
Proposal: I propose removing the local variations listed on this page. Gregorytopov 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove local variations 

message: I have removed the multitude of unverifiable local variations, and replaced them with the main variants described and verifiable from printed sources, e.g. Rook in a Book.  --Gregorytopov 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variations 

message: Standard playing cards are not derived from tarot cards. The Rider-Waite Tarot, the first tarot for English speakers, was not yet created in 1906. On a rather ironic note, Rook's game rules are quite similar to the rules of tarot card games and, by coincidence I assume, the so-called "minor arcana" of tarot, has the same 4x14 structure as the Rook deck. Smiloid 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarot cards predate the Rider-Waite Tarot by several centuries.  You're right that standard playing cards (poker cards) are not based on the Rider-Waite Tarot; but it's solidly documented that poker cards are based on earlier tarot cards.  Note that early tarot cards were used for gambling games, and not for divination.  It's accurate to say that poker cards are not based on occult tarot cards. Occult use of tarot cards predates Waite too, though; Waite was documenting and expanding an existing tradition, not cooking up something entirely original. 67.158.66.240 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: very true.  I have done a lot of research on cards and have found huge amounts of speculative rubbish regarding the "occult" origins of the tarot, much of which is mutually exclusive.  It is difficult to discern from  Kaplan, that the cards of the Marseilles type were  simply unfamiliar Italian Suited Tarock cards imported to France by travelers.  Cards themselves have  been used for divination with or without pictures.  The Lenormand style sybillia cards with their meanings.  That said standard rook cards can be used for divination the same way, once it is understood which system the diviner uses for interpretation.  Red5 means dark man etc.  sorry, for jumping in this.  I am not sure this adds anything to the discussion.  But there you are.  --K3vin (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rook and tarot

message: I propose that the Strategy section be removed, as it adds no information of actual value. The second sentence is wholly irrelevant, and the first little better. Nik-renshaw (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Section 

message: I have removed the edit about "Cunningham rules." The statement was unsourced and seemed quite dubious. A simple Google search of "Rook" with "Cunningham" brought up nothing meaningful, and this variation does not seem to merit more mention than any other. Nik-renshaw (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cunningham Rules 

message: I am undoing the parenthetical statement about Rook's popularity due to its connection with Reformed Christianity. The statement is unsourced and seems based on personal experience rather than research. Plus, it isn't encyclopedic in its presentation. If you can provide any source for this, or help me find a source, I would be glad to work to include it back in. Thanks. Nik-renshaw (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed Christianity 

message: I did quick Google searches for both of the "at least two annual tournaments." Neither showed up as anything more than a sentence here or there. Without some kind of good source, I am very wary of considering this information verifiable or probably noteworthy. If anyone can give me any kind of source for this, that would be great. Otherwise, I intend to delete the information, and possibly the entire section. Nik-renshaw (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I'm going to delete the section right now. Google searches of the names of the alleged winners turned up nothing outside of this article, and articles quoting this article. So, it is either vandalism (at least three of the players named in the second tournament attend the same university), or it is simply not notable. Drop a line here if you find a credible source for any of it. Nik-renshaw (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity, Notability of Tournaments 

message: In case anyone ever looks here: Does it make sense for there to be links to places one can play Rook online? How does this fit in with Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature? Isn't this just a plug for pages making money off online gaming? It seems to me that these links do not serve as information sources, and should not be present in the article. Nik-renshaw (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Can anyone find rules for a call partner game. I belive this to be one of the funnest variations. Altough I play with certian rules I cant find them in any rule books. If someone were to add this that would be great.
Skylark83 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call Partner 

message: I added a link to the rook bird card section, because I felt it was a long enough distance away from the link in the deck description to pursuade me it was not overlinking.  Admittedly I was skimming with an agenda, in that I wanted to see if the the article made mention of the names origin.  I think it may warrant it, but have not the gumption to expand the article at this moment.  At the very least, I felt cross wikilinking was enough.  --K3vin (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rook bird link 

message: According to the section "Adaptation for standard playing cards"
"Rook may be played with standard playing cards by removing the 2s, 3s, and 4s from the deck..."
One must assume this statement is talking about Tournament Rook, which according to the earlier section, takes out the 2s, 3s, and 4s. Since the Rook deck has an additional card in each suit, taking out the 2s, 3s, and 4s to simulate Rook makes no sense. Surely you would take out one less card, wouldn't you? To make the card scoring match up you might take out the 2s and 3s, and treat the 4s like 14s. I don't know what actual practice is, but this isn't rocket science...are people really that stupid, or is this section just in error? --Ericjs (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tournament Rook removes the 1 in addition to 2, 3 and 4. The rules suggested for french-suited playing cards here removes 2, 3 and 4 and uses the ace as 14. 109.189.56.7 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptation for standard playing cards 

message: The current article's infobox claims that Winning Moves is the publisher but unless Hasbro has sold this game that is not correct.
: It's actually both. Phil wink (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasbro not Winning Moves