Talk:Ghost (game)

Variants: Spook
On 26 April 2007, I added a paragraph about a variant called Spook. Three weeks later, on 20 May, my edits were removed by Andrevan without comment.

The help page on reverting is very clear: "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism... If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."

My contribution was not vandalism. Therefore, I have restored it, minus one sentence which I have since realized is unverifiable. If I did not present the added information in an acceptable form, please follow the wiki guidelines and improve the presentation without destroying it. Alternatively, use this discussion page. --Tino (72.244.148.12), 22 May 2007
 * I'd imagine the revert was because your contribution could easily have been read as "here's a version that me and my friends play", which isn't an appropriate addition to an encyclopaedia. Really, all of these variants should have a reliable source backing them up, and if your "Spook" variant is only played by you and your friends at the moment (without having any mentions in gaming articles or magazines), then it doesn't really merit inclusion here.
 * I have actually heard of a Ghost variant called "Spook", but have only seen it played as the add-a-letter-anywhere version. We really should dig up some good sources for this article, to work out which variants are notable, and which is which. --McGeddon 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Winning strategy
I do not believe that the second player always has a winning strategy in Ghost, as stated in the "Winning Strategy" section. I think RSpeer wrote those claims, so he should prove them or provide references. Otherwise, I will remove those claims. I wrote a computer program to solve Ghost, and it determined that the first player has a winning strategy for the particular dictionary that I used.

--DavidGrayson 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Posting a link to Randall Munroe's blog certainly meets the notability test. The entry is relevant, detailed, and is not an ad for a blog. I'm not the blog author, so it's not self-promotion. It's a link to an interesting and new analysis by a competent researcher into the mechanics of the game.

--Idangazit (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link to Randall Munroe's blog. The entry talks about the game, as do a great deal of other pages. This particular page has no particular new insights and is in fact nothing more than a rambling description of an implementation of the strategy already described in "Winning Strategies." Inclusion can be considered nothing if not a blog ad, though clearly not self promoting as Randall Munroe has previously apologised for his fans vandalising other wiki pages (see Foreplay talk page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.206.32 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I love Randall Munroe as much as the next Wikipedia editor... Still, not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.172.203 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Randall-stuff, it's a trivial game with a trivial solution and trivial strategy. Nothing new is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.226.134 (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the claims, actually. I wrote this section long ago, as a new editor who didn't pay much attention to reliable sources. (My observation was that with the ENABLE word list and a 3-letter word minimum, player 2 wins.)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Randall Munroe solution is not notable, but I suspect xkcd fans might get into a revert war over it. Marsman57 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Randall Munroe solution is the only solution available online. There is no requirement for it to be notable--only the subject of the article must be notable, not necessarily every piece of information or link. FWIW, I had never heard of Munroe outside of this context. See also everything that Idangazit posted. Having personally seen the effort required to develop a winning strategy (I'm the author of the other solution linked in the article), I feel well-placed to disagree with the comment by 62.16.226.134 as to the triviality of the game or solution. Another user claims that a great deal of other pages talk about the game as well. I searched unsuccessfully for other pages with winning strategies. The page is more than a "description of an implementation of the... winning strategy" because it provides the actual winning strategy. As a Ghost fan, I am excited to see this link in the article, and I will restore it, permanently I hope. Matchups (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

?
Ghost (game) = Lexicant = Ghost (game) ... ? 87.114.3.33 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war, but I don't see why the paragraph about word lists being barred from play is necessary. It duplicates the earlier sentence "Use of dictionaries is considered cheating". Perhaps that sentence could be elaborated upon instead. RSpeer 05:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. How's the current edit? Andre ( talk )A| 20:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

See, I meant that there's no reason this paragraph belongs in the "Winning strategy" section, and the one in "Game play" should be expanded on instead. So I elaborated there, and rewrote the "Winning Strategy" section.

In adding the "Winning strategy" section, my intent wasn't to give a comprehensive guide to how to cheat/prevent cheating at Ghost; my intent was to describe an interesting theoretical property of the game. I've clarified this a bit. RSpeer 22:25, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

This game is called Donkey Donkey (or just Donkey) in the UK. Kernow 13:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous comment, moved from top
I couldn't find a good description of the history/origins of the game Ghost using google so I came to check Wikipedia, but didn't find it here either. Something about an alternate spelling of 'fish' -- 'Gh' as in enough, ... 't' as in friction -- invented by some poet. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Fancy adding a paragraph on that?


 * You seem to be referring to ghoti, which is a joke about the English language, not a game. See that article.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rules
"Ghost is a word game in which players take turns adding letters to a growing word fragment, and trying not to be the one to complete an English word" - Is this right? I thought you could complete a word, as long as it was still part of a longer word. Kernow 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not how I learned it. The game ends when a word is made, as it says. 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The GAME does not end when a word is made; the round ends. I would like to amend the awkward beginning in the first paragraph, but I will start with subject-verb agreement, since I am here to copy-edit. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, can someone take a shot at rewriting the examples section, each case of which builds on ERA (which is already a complete English word)? --SlickVicar (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Template Changes
I modified the transcluded templates thus: Ronaldscott (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --> .  The article is clearly not unreferenced and as such does not qualify for transclusion of this tag.  Nevertheless some unreferenced inclusions still exist, such as the paragraph about the variant "Spook."
 * --> deleted.   is a subjective claim and the editor at 210.49.216.43 who added the template failed to make any comments on the talk page to support such a claim.  I don't find it confusing, at any rate.

Rules?
compared to the other pen-and-paper game articles this needs a proper explanation of the rules, I have no idea after reading the opening paragraph. If I keep adding Q no-one will win? 82.15.46.131 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules are in the "Game play" section, not the opening paragraph. If you keep adding Q you will be challenged and lose. --McGeddon (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

XKCD
He solved it on an airplane.Shouldnt that be inmportant enough to be in the article?Darth Cookie Monster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC).