Talk:KDice

message: This game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game. This article itself provides proof via in-line citations.
:It was a sentence and a picture when I flagged it. lemme look at the articles a sec. Cantras 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. one of your links doesn't work, and the game was only created 2 months ago. I'm leaving the flag up, and we'll see when someone gets to it.Cantras 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: edit- the date created has been changed to december first. could someone find/verify that?Cantras 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Both of those are blogs, not reliable sources. See verifiability, where blogs are also not allowed. ColourBurst 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kotaku is written by a well-known professional journalist, his work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. I've also added a review from Channel 4's website.--OriginalJunglist 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean, and Kotaku itself is under the Gawker banner, but one of the reasons that people object to blogs period is because they have no editorial supervision.  See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#at_what_point_reliability.3F.  ColourBurst 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-notable game?

message: In addition to luck and psychology, territory control based on map layout can important to some players.  
I don't know "independent sources" for this, but it seems like this might make a good addition.  I know I build my strategies around map layout and territory (which may be why I'm not so good at the game :-). --Seth Munter
Sethsbiz@Earthlink.net  
67.101.212.246 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the problem, that there cannot be "independent sources" for strategy, and it is always to some degree POV. At least until several people write books about kdice like they did for chess :-). This is one reason the (external) kdice wiki  exists, it does not have to apply to encyclopedic criterias! You'll find a strategy write up here: , you are also invited to add things that match there. --Jestix 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Strategy Section 

message: I've removed the probability chart as indiscriminate information / statistics(WP:NOT#INFO). I've removed the strategy section as original research (WP:OR) and "not a manual or guidebook" (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Note that there are several gaming wikis (see the bottom of WP:VG) that would be happy to print that material instead.
:I undid this revision: I disagree with your rationale for removing the probability table. The relevant piece of WP:NOT#INFO says, Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. None of this applies to the table you removed: it was not "long and sprawling" and it was readily understandable.
:You have more of a point re the Strategy section. Personally, I think a very basic strategy overview (something smaller than what the strategy section had become) is useful information, and not really "research", if the information is basic enough. (e.g. "taking many small chances adds up to taking a big chance, if you need to win them all". That's a statistical truism.) However, I won't fight you on removing this section. JudahH 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look far back in the history of this page, you'll see beeing not only a kdice player but a long standing wikipedia fan, I agree with Marasmusine. The indeth probabilty table e.g. is not really good to be placed at wikipeia which should give an overview over stuff not indepth analysis. I delteted it then, but soon got reverted by a fellow kdice player soon after. As result of this inner conflict, since I wanted the data to keep alive, while I want to uphold the wikipedia principles, I created the kdice wiki. You'll see it in the external links. After that I hardly edited the wikipedia anymore, because then someone could rightfully call me biased. Especially if hed' say I delete wikipedia only to promote "my" gaming wiki. So now an independant wikipedian copyeditor agrees with that, I hope this issue is settled. --Jestix 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three paragraphs up, I wrote why I disagree about the "Dice Roll Probabilities" section being a problem as "statistics". If you want to take out "Strategy and Playing Styles", I won't revert your edit.JudahH 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source is the KDice wiki; site here just scroll down, it's on the main page. -- penubag  01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Longtime ago when I contributed to this article I realised already, that there is many stuff on it that didn't fit in the wikipedia guidelines. So I founded the kdice wiki. However quite some  players were against it..."mah we don't need this, you have it all relevant on wikipedia, go away with this". so the sounds... I didn't delete the content any further from wikipedia, since I could be interpreted as POV, wanting to support just the kdice wiki by removing stuff from wikipedia... Well it took only some months until some other wikipedia contributeres agreed with my original realisation for example the table is not encyclopedical. Aside from that, the talk page only talks about stuff about the article, it is NOT there to hold information not suitable for the article, but wanted for some people. Therefore IMHO it should be removed here as well, sorry about that. If you want a more beatuiful version on the kdice wiki just help me create one. --Jestix (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If people would like to contribute to this article, this is the kind of content we need for an encyclopedic entry: Development history, opinions from game critics, other "out-of-game" references and citations from independent, reliable coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed some stuff

message: "Att:Def is not about luck. It's just a ratio of your attacks to defends throughout the game. So if you had 570 attack and 430 defends your ration would be 57:43. It means you were more aggressive than defensive. Luck however is the sum how you did on each attack and defend throughout the game based on the attacks dice probability table (7v4 is more unlucky to loose than 7v6). So if you won a bunch 8v2s you would be very mildly lucky but if you won a 2v8 you're luck would jump drastically, in proportion to the probability of winning. " -- penubag  (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luck 

message: Can we confirm that the probability is correct ?
Each of the other columns shows a decreasing percentage , this shows a decrease then an increase.
It also differs from here 
http://kdice.wikispaces.com/How+the+probability+table+is+calculated
Wakelamp (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 versus 3 

message: The numerous templates in the main article and talk page are distracting and make the page uninviting. Please consider carefully before adding new ones, and review existing ones and if warranted, remove them. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.79 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Templates 

message: An image used in this article, File:Kdicedice.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kdicedice.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KDice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915190232/http://kdice.wikispaces.com/ to http://kdice.wikispaces.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified