Talk:Monopoly (game)/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 February 2002 and 3 July 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archives to Talk:Monopoly_(game)/Archive_2. Thank you. --JohnDBuell 09:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is a bit Americanised, as it's the American board, and on the British board there is no luxury tax its super tax and you pay £100, I have nothing against, having a copy of the baord here or reference to it, but there are a number of different country versions of the baord, so it may get untidy. Any suggestions. -fonzy
:I think this is a big problem with Wikipedia in general.  Do we use the American spelling (e.g. color) or the British spelling (e.g. colour)?  In the case of this article, I don't know what to do.  Having two boards is a bit cumbersome and I think creating different entries for each version is also a bit much.  I don't know of a better way of dintinguishing between the two.  Perhaps a caption with the British conversions?  Anyone else? -Frecklefoot 18:15 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
::The spelling problem in Wikipedia is "solved" by allowing both.  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style.  Face it, there is no way to avoid it.  The style guide does suggest that Brit spelling is best for Brit subjects and American spelling for American subjects.  That rule is not much help here, granted, but Monopoly is an American game after all.  Ortolan88
:::It may be an American game, but arguably the British version is more widespread (for example, in Australia the British version is the "standard", the Australian version a variant, and the American version unheard of). ShaneKing 05:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting problem. It seems it's really only to do with style; someone who speaks British English will find it perfectly easy to read something written in American English, but they won't feel comfortable with the unfamiliarity of it. When it comes down to  whole different languages, wikipedia's approach is to have a separate set of articles (meaning the spanish article can have totally differing content to the french article - good thing?); but this approach applied to dialects of the same language would probably be a bit over the top, as entire articles would need to be written again with minor spelling, grammar and phrasing changes. Perhaps there could be a special tag, whereby entire sections of text could be given separate dialectic versions. e.g.: " [dialect:gb|I found the colour humourous|us|I found the color humorous]". What do people think? --Splidje 11:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Splidje - I agree with your principle, but thought you may like to know that while 'humour'/'humor'has two spellings, 'humorous' is actually spelt the same in both dialects.  ;-)  CA 81.6.223.146 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who thought of Monopoly first, the convention adopted by Wikipedia is that if the article is written in American English first, then in American English it shall stay. It's reasonable to refer to both boards in full, and probably others (such as the Star Wars board) in passing DavidFarmbrough 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too American 

message: What is special about the american and british version of monopoly?  As far as I know, the game has different versions for different places. Wshun
:There are also different versions for different cities in the United States. RickK
The American (Atlantic City) version is special because it's the original.  The British (London) version is special because it's the most widely known around the world. -- Derek Ross |  Talk
There is also a Wales/Cymru version not mentioned in the article. I have this version; I will add something if I have time, although I am busy with other articles right now. If anyone else has time then they can add it I am sure. --The1exile 17:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main list article is at Localized versions of the Monopoly game. The Wales version is not on there currently, feel free to add it. --JohnDBuell 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US, British, and other versions 

message: The game was originally designed to promote Georgism, as the losers would resent the evil landlord winner. I don't know whether this is non-NPOV, or whether it's a drollery. Sometimes, though at the very antipodes of common sense, humorless seriousness and wit shake hands. Wetman 05:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm not sure what Wetman means (sorry), but I move to remove that reference. Whether it's intended as humor or not, I can't find any evidence that it's true. Notice there is no other reference to it anywhere else in the article. —Frecklefoot 15:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Okay, I removed the statement. It was unsupported by any research I've uncovered. All I can think is it was added by a Georgism advocate. If someone really wants it back in, find and post the reference. —Frecklefoot 15:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Derek Ross is quite correct, the game Monopoly was created on prior art by a 'georgism advocate'... see that link.  I think this article is almost ready to be broken into sub articles, the origin of Monopoly is a full story all by itself. This article as written now looks fairly complete, but if it gets much bigger it could be unwieldy.  Good Job though, this is one of the more thorough treatments of the game I've seen.Pedant 18:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgism 

message: The "Relative values of each color group" section refers to "brown properties." Since the author also refers to "orange properties." I know he is not confusing the brown with the orange. I don't see any brown properties on the board. From the context, it looks like they mean the dark purple properties (Mediterranean Avenue, Baltic Avenue). Does this seem reasonable? I want to fix it, but I don't want to screw it up. :-S Any other opinions? —Frecklefoot 16:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe the dark purple properties were what was being talked about, but I don't know that for a fact. Just throwing in my opinion in case nobody else knows and it comes to that. :) Bryan 01:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm the author of that bit! OK, in the UK version of the game there are two very cheap brown-colo(u)red properties immediately after Go called Whitechapel Road and Old Kent Road - in the US version it does indeed look like they're dark purple, Mediterranean and Baltic. Ooops! I'll make the edit - thanks for pointing it out! Toby W 09:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The US version was the original, but I agree, the UK version is familiar to most people outside the US. See discussion above under "Too American". Toby W 09:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown properties? 

message: Can I just say that having the tables/boards with the colors is the COOLEST. THING. EVER. jengod 20:26, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
: *blush* This is the kind of comment that makes all the hassle and heartbreak worthwhile. :) Bryan 08:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was amazed such a thing could be created using just table tag. Tomos 17:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to create Biology science map using table tag, like that, but althow syntax is simple, I can't do it myself, so I ask someone help me. I can scan picture and set as example. if someone can help me, use my talk--Albedo 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SO COOL! 

message: Japanese Wikipedia now has a copy of the board layout. And we came to wonder if there is any copyright issue here. I mean, can a third party sell this board as GFDL permits? Or should we consider this a quote or fair use? 
From reading the article, I figured the earliest version came into market around 1935. Am I correct in assuming that's what's shown as an example? Tomos 17:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but maybe in a sub article?Pedant 19:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status? 

message: In the tactics session it says that it is much better to put three or four houses on each property in one group (leaving the other undeveloped) than it is to put two houses everywhere. But I've read somewhere in the game rules that you can't build for example 3 houses on a property until you have 2 on each of the other properties in the colour group. So, isn't that 'illegal'? 
:It refers to leaving the other group undeveloped, not the other property in a single group. Might as well add the one word in, for clarity's sake. Bonalaw 14:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There. It now says "leaving the other group undeveloped". Bonalaw 14:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in tactics section? 

message: There's a really awkward sentence in the second paragraph under the history section:
She knew that some people can find it hard to understand why this happens and what might be done about it and she thought that if Georgist ideas were put into the concrete form of a game, they might be easier to demonstrate.
Anyone wann fix it? I don't know who wrote it or what his/her exact intent was, so I don't wann mess it up. I will give it  shot if no one else does. Keep it rearl, Kzzl 17:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi monopoly people 

message: Acording to the Book "Do Not Pass Go" about the choice of the London Monopoly squares, it says it was  Victor Watson    who went to london with the secretary Marjorie Phillips not Norman. The book says Norman only tested the game.
:Ah... mea culpa. The sources I used were unclear about this. I'll fix it. Mintguy (T) 19:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Version choice of Locations? 

message: What is the basis for the claims made in the summary table? I believe that the element of strategy is high, and the chance element is medium, but any such judgment is either POV or original research. — David Remahl 10:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the complexity of the rules, I agree with you on both content and style.  It should be "medium".  The other two entries (strategy="medium" and luck="high") I think are correct as they are.  Since there are two of us that agree, I'll change the main article.  :-)  --Fritzlein 17:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy vs. chance 

message: The page mentions a cannon as one of the game pieces. I always thought it was a spinning wheel? Can anyone provide a source on the identity of this game piece?
The piece is a cannon, not a spinning wheel.  I realize this is one of those "I know I read it somewhere, but can't remember where" things, but it is true.  The computer version does have a cannon, and it moves by shooting the opposite way to "push" the piece around the board.  I know I've also seen the piece referred to as a "cannon" in various Monopoly books.  I have three or four of these books, but I've recently moved and haven't found them yet.
--Rt66lt, August 13, 2005
The Monopoly Companion by Philip Orbanes shows the original patent by Darrow.  There's no names, but the picture is obviously a cannon.
--Rt66lt, August 13, 2005
I believe the cannon, horse and rider and the battleship were all leftovers from a failed Risk-like game, but don't quote me on that. GarrettTalk 06:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Pieces 

message: You're welcome :)  --brian0918 talk 06:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. A little more information and a link to the source would be good. I take it the 'National Archive' is in the US. -- Solipsist 07:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I'm not sure if the source link accessible by everyone, but it states on the site that it was created by a US Govt Dept and that there are no usage restrictions.  --brian0918 talk 07:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Patent Drawing by Lizzie Magie 

message: The article says that the first blue, that is, dark-blue, property is called "Bellevue Place". But in the current Monopoly games, U.S. version, the property is called "Park Place" in English and "Plaza del Parque" in the translated U.S. Spanish version. The name "Park Place" comes from a street in southwestern Atlantic City called "Park Place", on a park called "Brighton Park".
First thing I wanna ask is why did they write on the article that the property is called "Bellevue Place", and not "Park Place". Second thing is, if it ever existed, then where does the name "Bellevue Place" come from? Apparently, at least nowadays, there is no street in Atlantic City called "Bellevue Place". Is that a mistake by the users who edited the article? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellevue Place instead of Park Place? 

message: Does anyone know, on average, which railroad is most landed on? I haven't searched a lot of websites for this info, so hoping someone has a good guess. - KK in Calif.
:Good question! I assume it's King's Cross since many of the "Advance to" cards point either directly to it or to somewhere nearby. This is probably covered in the lengthy probability reports in the links section, but that's my guess for now. GarrettTalk 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which railroad is most landed on? 

message: Since the 1935 board WAS reprinted in the US a couple of years ago, I'm surprised there's not a sentence or two about the slight changes in the board and rules compared to the current edition (e.g. income tax was originally $300, not $200, a special "banker's board" for keeping money denominations in seperate piles came only with later editions, slight differences in colors as printed on the board, etc.) Would this be worthwhile to add to the article (I own one of the reprints). --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1935 rules/board/reprint? 

message: Could someone post the mortgage values along with the other financial information about each property?
All properties have a mortgage value that is exactly half of what it cost. For example, the utilities cost $150 and mortgaging them will get $75. To unmortgage a property, you pay the mortgage value plus 10%. For example, unmortgaging Baltic and Mediterrian Avenues (the Dark Browns on the UK board I believe) will cost you $33, which is the mortgage price of $30 plus $3 from the 10%.--Chicobo329 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortgage Values 

message: Isn't there a list page for official/unofficial versions of Monopoly that a lot of those can be moved to? And I'm guilty of adding a couple, myself. --JohnDBuell 07:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of official/unofficial versions is getting out of hand! 

message: Is there provenance for that one? Midgley 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Version: real? 

message: Under "House Rules" it lists "Double Rent," but I'm pretty sure this is an official rule.
:I think that you are correct, but I don't have time to check the rules now.  Someone please check the rules and make the change. Val42 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Hasbro's website, Double Rent is an official rule (http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf) and I'll correct this.
When a player owns all three (or two) properties in a color group, they can charge double rent on that color group Reywas92 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Right - the trick is that that is valid for an 'undeveloped' property. Once you put houses on it, you charge at the one house/two house/etc rate, not DOUBLE that! --JohnDBuell 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Rent is not House Rule 

message: The differences between the version of this article when it was featured and the current version are quite considerable.  As best as I can tell, a large amount of text has somehow gotten lost.  We need to review this diff, and untangle it, and fix whatever needs to be fixed(if anything).  I can't do this right now, so I'm dropping this note on the talk page to remind myself, and hopefully get some help.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the information is very pertinent, especially as people discover more about the background and history of Monopoly and the games that preceded it. However, the lists are REALLY getting out of hand. It seems like everybody that owns a custom board, licensed or not, wants to add it. I think it's worthwhile to mention spin-offs like the City in the Box, but I think the list of localized boards needs to be updated/expanded. I've been considering the creation of a List of licensed Monopoly game boards (or something like it) where people can add THEIR OWN photographs (under GFDL, of course) of the boards in their collections. Thoughts? --JohnDBuell 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also started tinkering in my userpage namespace, and determined that if we fork off the lists and the history section, we could get this main page back down under 40KB. --JohnDBuell 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review changes 

message: I'm against linking to the talk page from a featured article. Couldn't we summarize these objections (at least those which are sourced) in an appropriate article. 69.22.42.35 03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone can find an external source, online or not, that has a similar debate over the Guinness figure of 500 million, or Hasbro's quoted 2005 figure of 750 million, feel free to change the link. I re-read that section of this talk page and couldn't find anything that looked like an external link. I agree that it shouldn't be there, it's just a matter of finding an appropriate source. --JohnDBuell 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch. The FAO Schwarz set trumps the other easily, and certainly came later. The Monopoly Companion book was first printed in the 1980s and reprinted in the 1990s, before the FAO Schwarz set came out. --JohnDBuell 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heavily disputed 

message: I have unilaterally cut these lists down, and tried to reemphasize the subpages that have larger lists. I've managed to shave 2KB off of the article's size by doing this, and as I noted, long lists like that are a good way to land this article onto FARC, which I don't want to see happen. --JohnDBuell 12:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version and variation lists 

message: It's possible to go bankrupt as a result of bankrupting another player. If you are on near bankruptcy yourself, and bankrupt another player, you might not be able to pay off the interest on that player's properties, and thus go bankrupt too. I've never actually seen it happen, but it has been close.--RLent 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy 

message: The previous version of this article claimed that the anti-monopoly lawsuit "went all the way to the United States Supreme Court" and that the Supreme Court found in favor of anti-Monopoly, which is not accurate.  A quick Lexis search for "anti-monopoly" reveals that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Anti-Monopoly, Inc. in Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982), and the Supreme Court denied cert (that is, they decided not to hear the case and let the lower court's decision stand).  See CPG Prods. Corp. v. Anti-Monopoly, Inc., 459 U.S. 1227 (1983) (denying cert).  I have removed the reference to the Supreme Court and substituted an accurate description. Elliotreed 05:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what does Anspach have published on his website under http://www.antimonopoly.com/excerpt_court_ruling_original.htm ? You may need to be as specific in the article as you are on this section of the talk page. --JohnDBuell 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I tried to fix the text to relate all of this. It may be worth noting that Anspach's own site tries to spin the case as "going all the way to the Supreme Court." He also is still apparently clashing with Hasbro. --JohnDBuell 20:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked Lexis for the thing Anspach posted on his site, and it's Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982), the Ninth Circuit opinion, not a Supreme Court opinion.  Anspach is clearly trying to mislead people into thinking this was a bigger deal than it was; the Supreme Court never heard the case or rendered a decision.  The Supreme Court was only involved insofar as Hasbro petitioned for cert and the Supreme Court denied it. --Elliotreed 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy to grasp from the general tone of his website that he's in just as much of a hype game over his POV (and ultimately for sales of his book and games!) as anyone else involved in making -opoly sets. Absolute classic case of needing to meet NPOV requirements on a topic. Because of this spin, do you have any other references (online or off) for the texts of these court decisions? --JohnDBuell 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In large public libraries in the United States, it can be found in the huge set of volumes of Federal court decisions.  The reference, 684 F.2d 1316, means that it's in volume 684 of the 2nd Federal series, at page (or section?) 1316... I believe, as it's been a while since I actually looked something up this way.  I did at one point look up this very case, after reading about it on the Internet and being curious about the details, but didn't make a copy. *Dan T.* 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to remember this the next time I'm at a public or college library, and see if we can convert this to a . --JohnDBuell 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As a note, I've removed a reference to Anspach still being required to license the name, as this seems to be in conflict with information presented earlier in the article and on the Anti-Monopoly page.  69.140.122.147 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph you removed the text from does indicate that the trademark was allowed to be re-registered by Kenner Parker Toys and subsequently acquired by Hasbro due to acts passed in Congress in the 1980s. As such, the text has been restored as being correct. --JohnDBuell 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-monopoly lawsuit 

message: Would anyone be interested in starting a new sub-page of pop culture references? The game has been mentioned in the comic strips Calvin and Hobbes, FoxTrot and even Madam and Eve. I even noticed it played a part in at least the television episode Agatha Christie's Poirot: The Lost Mine - I don't know if it was in the original short story, I haven't read it, yet. But I also noticed a goof - the London version came out in 1936 (and they even used a "Patent Applied For" board, amazing!) but one of the characters (in the aforementioned television episode) signs his name into a hotel register giving a date of 1935. Oops. :) --JohnDBuell 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the only problem is that mentions of Monopoly are so ubiquitous that such a list would very quickly become very large. We might have to restrict it by keeping to notable mention of Monopoly only. But feel free. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely, which is why I was suggesting to use the existing mini-list as a start off point, but fork the whole thing off onto a new subpage. I did something very similar with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and that's been pretty successful. It really keeps the main page from getting too unwieldy. --JohnDBuell 05:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would work. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references? 

message: In the equipment section of the article, it states that 'These plastic tokens can be seen in the German Monopoly set pictured at the beginning of this article'.  There is, however, no German set pictured anywhere in the article. Lollergirl 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look VERY closely at the image in the infobox at the VERY start of the article. It's a German set with currency in DM. --JohnDBuell 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Set 

message: Just want to clarify what is Georgist and what is not in The Landlord's Game.  
The landlord\tenant\rent relationship is not Georgist. Since Adam Smith first explained it, all economists whatever their political persuasion, agree that, in a free market, rent will rise until the average income tenant can only just afford it. This leads to impoverishment of the below-average income tenants (and is one of the big reasons for everyone to buy their own home if they possibly can). Monopoly still demonstrates this admirably. 
The Georgist part of The Landlord's Game (which is missing from modern Monopoly) was to impose a Land value tax during the second phase of the game. I would imagine that the second phase was dropped because, while it makes for a great demonstration, it makes for a poor game since you don't get an out-and-out winner as you do in Monopoly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgist POV 

message: Would someone like to break the Here and Now Editions text into a new subsection? I've just discovered that not only was there a UK edition last year, and an upcoming US edition, but there's also a German "Heute" ("Today") edition, and possibly others.... --JohnDBuell 12:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here and Now Editions 

message: I've added the  tag to this section because it appears to contradict itself; Park Place is cited as the least landed-upon, then later Mediterranean and Baltic Avenues are mentioned as the least landed-upon. Can someone clarify this? —Cuiviénen 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read over the "Probabilities in the Game of Monopoly" page (see below), and then it started to make sense. I see where it looked self-contradictory before, hopefully the rewrite will help.  --JohnDBuell 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property square probabilities 

message: I changed it to an american version because we speak ENGLISH, NOT GERMAN. GangstaEB 02:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea for a number of reasons. One: that was NOT the original monopoly board, you'd have to have a photograph of a 1935 Parker Brothers edition (NOT the reprint), or earlier to make that claim. Two: The German board picture of a game in progress is released under GFDL, it's not protected by copyrights for promotional material as yours was, and there's always a preference to take GFDL images over copyright protected images whenever and whereever possible (there's also a debate about banning 'fair use' images on EN wikipedia altogether, but that's not a topic to debate here). On top of that, it's also a Featured Image, which is a VERY good idea for inclusion in a featured article. Three: The image proves that Monopoly is indeed an international phenomenon, which the article describes. --JohnDBuell 06:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Are the cards the same for the US and the British version. I.e. In the British version you get money for winning a crossword competition and and coming second in a Beauty contest. Jooler 13:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you mean the standard editions, because they get customized for each license used by Hasbro/Winning Movies/USAopoly etc. There's no crossword competition in the US cards, but the "Second Place in a Beauty Contest" goes back to the 1935 edition. --JohnDBuell 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cards 

message: Reports have come out that they're phasing out paper money for VISA-type cards.
:I doubt the change is permanent. It seems to only be available for variants of the French, German and UK "Here and Now" editions. --JohnDBuell 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it is Here to stay in the U.S. version as well. Wonder how we can get a hold of a royalty-free picture of the card reader? YearginSM 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By your link, Hasbro US is only "considering" the change. And the Visa debit reader STILL only appears in variants of the "Here and Now" edition. Hardly sounds like a permanent change to me. You'd have to get someone in Germany, France or the UK to photograph the cards/reader, but Visa/Hasbro will still own rights to the design. --JohnDBuell 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more money 

message: This table has been rewritten to use the Wiki markup for tables, rather than HTML. Does anyone know how to get text to wrap back up to the right of the table, rather than underneath it? It would make the article appear to be less long in a browser than it is now. --JohnDBuell 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dice roll probability table 

message: Quote:
According to the Monopoly Companion by Philip Orbanes:
* The longest game ever played was 1,680 hours.
* The longest game played in a bathtub was 99 hours.
* The longest game played underwater was 1,080 hours.
* The longest game played in a moving elevator was 384 hours.
* The longest game played upside down (on a ceiling) was 36 hours.
* The longest game played on the back of a fire truck was 101 hours.
* The longest game played in a tree house was 240 hours.
* The largest outdoor game played was played on a 938-by-765 foot game board.
* The largest indoor game played was played on a 122-by-122 foot game board.
* The smallest game played was played on a 1-inch-square game board and was played for 30 hours.
I would like to check how credible Monopoly Records are. (Nearly) all of the entries are suspicious. They appear to be promotional or marketing gimmicks to promote the game Monopoly, instead of objective, third-party and factual records. If so, they should be removed in accordance to wikipedia standards or policies. 
After all, the main question is whether they are credible and real records? Any comment or input?
If there is not positive input or proofs or the like, I'm going to remove them.--Wai Wai (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, scrap 'em. The only remotely significant one is the longest game ever played. The rest are pointless. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that each of those items CAN be confirmed in The Monopoly Companion, but the second edition of that book was published in 1999, and any listed records MAY have been surpassed in the last seven years. --JohnDBuell 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying delete them because they're non-verifiable or even because they're false, John. I'm saying delete them because they're not notable. I don't believe that they add anything to our reader's understanding of Monopoly, however true they may be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Even if they are taken from an original source (ie verifiable), it should not be put if they are vanity (eg deletion should be made if these information is promotional, rather than true and honest records). Anyway the issue is fixed now (as it has been deleted).--Wai Wai (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the impression that the user who added them grabbed a copy of the book and just added every record within, in good faith. Obviously I have no problem with the thought that only the one is truly notable, I must say I find the rest of them whimsical.... --JohnDBuell 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious Monopoly Records 

message: I'd actually prefer to continue to call the section Notes, after seeing that there's no consensus under Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Some of the texts I've actually used to expand this article are listed in the Further Reading section, which actually takes the place of References for this article (since that's much the same thing). --JohnDBuell 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. The "notes" part is for footnotes placed at the bottom of a page that comments on, and may cite a reference for, a part of the main text. However the "reference" part is to place any referenced materials (books, websites etc.) used in constructing the article at the bottom of a page. Since I see it mixes with both notes and references, it should be called "Notes and references". I will update the page to make this clear. Thanks for your comments. --Wai Wai (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh nevermind, what I thought I saw was lack of consensus on titling the sections in singular or plural. Plural certainly applies in the case of this article, as there are multiple notes, and multiple printed references. --JohnDBuell 11:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section 

message: Could this be added: it has "the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants"?  It says that in "The Landlord's Game" article which was the precursor to Monopoly.  Stars4change (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That very phrase was originally part of this article but has been removed for some reason. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enrich owners, impoverish tenants 

message: Between trades and the decisions of whether to build or mortgage, this statement is clearly untrue:
In addition, the game requires almost no strategy. The only decision a player has to make is whether or not to buy a property.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of criticism 

message: Estanciero es a licensed copy of monopoly there is in argentina  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.28.240 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone add info about Estanciero 

message: I have a Looney Tunes Monopoly, and my friend has a Nintendo Monopoly, and both of our game boards have a pink group after the Jail space.  The diagrams on this page use light purple instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.176.41 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Squares 

message: The orange properties, and the light-purple(or pink) properties, are actually the most landed-on properties on the whole game board. This is because whenever a player leaves the the jail, they go right out onto that side of the board. Also, the most landed-on railroad is Pennsylvania Railroad for that same reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renddslow (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Landed--On Properties 

message: When was a milk carton introduced as a piece?  I can't find a source for it.  Is that just hash? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk carton? 

message: I've just bumped this down from the improbable "45 - 600 minutes" to "45 - 180 minutes" (taking the upper limit from BoardGameGeek). Couldn't find a useful source for the actual playing time. Does anyone have a copy of the game they could check the box of? --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing time 

message: I have a version called the Here and Now: Limited Edition it has the top landmarks from Canada, why isn't that version in here? I have a version with scoobby doo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.56.94 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive there is now a firefighters edition 83.81.63.107 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Versions 

message: This article has two citations listed merely as "Kennedy, p. 35" and "Kennedy, p. 23." Nowhere is it indicated who Kennedy is or what he/she authored. —  Michael J  22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod Kennedy is the author of the book published in association with the Atlantic City Historical Museum. Details now added.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources unclear 

message: The article has been tagged for lack of sourcing since August 2010. If you can provide sourcing, please feel free to re-add the below material. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material 

message: It's listed that offering rent immunity is a variant. I don't think it should be listed, as under the rules it specifically outlines rent and states that if a player doesn't ASK for the rent within two players moves, then the rent is forfeit. One could assume that by simply not asking for the rent would grant one immunity from having to pay rent, and thus is not a variant as it's directly in the rules. DeMyztikX (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The variant would I assume be rent immunity being considered binding. In the standard rules, I can buy Fleet Street off you and say I won't charge you rent when you land on it, then I can build hotels on the red group and go ahead and charge you the rent anyway. M0ffx (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: There have been a very large number of edits on this page. And I see that someone beat me to fixing the changes. My concern is that for example that the link to the BBC page for example did not contain the information that it was being used to source. If you wish to put major changes to the games origin it would be advisible to discuss it on this page first to ensure that it is not original research.Tetron76 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss Changes 

message: So what should we call the tokens on the page? The Wikipedia page currently lists "pawns/pieces", but the rules refer to them as tokens. When I was in the UK at the UK MONOPOLY Championship last spring, they refer to them as "movers". Any consensus?
GAME ON!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.153.200 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokens/Movers/Pawns/Pieces 

message: I notice there is no continuity in the spellings in this article. There are UK and US spellings throughout. Color, Colour etc. From the history, the first language specific spelling seems to be "colour", but as this is an American game I am more inclined to think it should be in US ENG. As an Anglo-American I have no qualms about either. MrMarmite (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK ENG or US ENG 

message: 1. The "History" section is disjointed and flows poorly, like random paragraphs cut from a longer text.
2. In "Board - US versions", Should "adaptation" in "the adaptation of a flat $200 Income Tax" actually be "adoption"? I would change it myself, but I'm not 100% sure I understand what it was intended to mean....
86.181.168.183 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments 

message: I used to work for a (computer) games company, and a game designer I worked with described more succinctly what the problem with monopoly is, by definition of it's title, premise, and monopoly in real life, once one person starts winning, it takes 4 hours for everyone to slowly lose, even when they gang up on the winning player.  This wasn't his own words, it was part of his training, so this MUST be written somewhere.  In other words, there is no "reward" system for losing players to try to catch up, and a comeback is, by the rules of chance, very rare.  I could probably word this logically, thereby getting past the requirement to find a citation, but that would be worthy of an essay, which I can't be bothered to write, so if anyone can find a good citation, it would save me a long time of putting into indisputable terms which don't require a citation :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.48.95 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the game designer who you worked with isn't familiar with how the game is truly played. More often than not, when everyone plays by ALL of the rules in the game and with NONE of the house rules, most games should be finished in well under 2 hours. And I have seen many a game where someone who was clearly in last place can come back and strategically trade their way up into better standings and even come back to win in some instances. Tostie14 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further criticism 

message: There's a slight problem with the layout images in the "Board" section. The U.S, U.K. and Here and Now World images all portray the spaces corresponding to Mediterranean and Baltic Avenues as brown rather than violet. The Here and Now U.S. doesn't have this problem; instead, it portrays Centennial Park, Red Rocks Amphitheater, and the Liberty Bell (i.e., on the traditional board, St. Charles's Place, States, and Virginia) as lavender rather than magenta. This might not seem like a huge problem, but I know at least one author who based her description of the Monopoly board on one of these images; I think it behooves this site to make sure that she isn't deceiving her public. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do boards of different ages use variations in color? Could that be the reason? Which image(s) are you referring to? -- Trevj (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: In 2008, Hasbro standardized the board so that all new editions would have brown for the first two spaces instead of violet/purple to bring the US in line with the rest of the world. The Here & Now: US Edition was put out before that time which is why it was violet. Similarly, changes were made to eliminate the 10% option for Income Tax and changed Luxury/Super Tax to $100 from $75 in the US. Tostie14 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Crisis 

message: An image used in this article, File:British monopoly.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;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) 11:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:British monopoly.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion 

message: Hi, I would like to suggest that somewhere in this article (and presumably also in Chance and Community Chest cards) the significance of the name "Community Chest" is explained. Though I remember the game well from childhood, I realised after happening on this article that I've gone my whole life without ever having the remotest idea what it means. At Community Chest it says "named after the American charity", which appears to refer to Community Chest (organization). Is that correct? I still don't really get the connection, especially because some of the cards are bad things, like "Go to jail", "Pay Hospital Fees" and "Pay School Fees". Why would they have anything to do with a charity? Does anyone know? I think we should be told! 86.181.170.34 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Several communities in the United States still have a Community Chest, but they're more commonly known as the United Way now. As to why some of the cards are penalties, the only thing I can think of is that it balances out the game play. If you had all of the negative effects in Chance, and all of the positive ones in Community Chest, you would be taking out one of the random factors. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Chest 

message: The article doesn't seem to explain the aim of the game clearly. As a child I never understood what I was supposed to do, so I was always the first family member to go out and had to sit through the rest of the game. I used to call it The Bored Game Monotony.
However, in later life, I cottoned on to what the real property game's all about and I now own enough rental properties that I can live off their income. All owned outright.
--88.108.219.140 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The aim of a player of the game is to bankrupt the other players by charging them extortionate rents. The aim of a player of the real life property game is make a better return on real estate than can be obtained via other investments. If you are doing that, you are winning. Please feel free to clarify the article if it is not clear on the aim of the game. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Monopoly is about staying in the game by paying as little money as you can while making enough to not go bankrupt when you do have to pay. Basically, choosing the right time to buy or trade. Gatonom Nyan 21:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim of the Game 

message: Since the game is normally attributed to Charles Darrow, who is typically seen as the inventor of the game, it would be good if there were earlier references to him in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In fact, I came to this talk page just to say the same thing. Kdammers (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Darrow is just the dude that got lucky enough to sucker George Parker into buying the game to sell nationally. The game existed thirty years before that. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He is also first mentioned in the second paragraph of the article, so I don't see what the fuss is about. --JohnDBuell (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier reference to Darrow needed