Talk:History of Monopoly

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malak1994.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

untitled
I'd like to try something new - well, new for this article. Why not just a year by year timeline of events? I'm going to start it as a sub-page of the talk page, and see if we can get some ideas going. Since I've not regularly edited in a LONG time, I'm not sure what the criteria are for making an actual timeline into a Wikipedia article. The goal would be as a supplement and summary to this article and the Monopoly (game) page.

Timeline sandbox

--JohnDBuell (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The timeline sandbox is now at Talk:History of Monopoly/Timeline, after the page move. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR Notice
I do not believe this article meets the current FA criteria. Some paragraphs are uncited, as well as there being some questionable sources being used. Not entirely sure if this article is well-researched enough either as I wonder how thorough the page is on the history of the board game. GamerPro64 23:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved, per updated unanimous consensus. Thanks everyone for participation, civility, and logical responses  —usernamekiran (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

History of the board game Monopoly → History of Monopoly (game) – The parent article is Monopoly (game), so as a "child article", the nomenclature should reflect that of the parent. Even putting this aside, the article covers more than solely the board game proper, as it also goes into detail about other derivative properties with the Monopoly name, such as slot machines and a game show. This point was also addressed in the FAR by at least one other editor. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

---
 * relisting comment Currently there are 5 supports in favour of suggested title, "History of Monopoly (game)" (excluding nomination), and 7 in favour of "History of Monopoly". Both of the parties have presented valid rationale. I dont see a consensus as of 07:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC), so I am relisting this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support History of Monopoly, which already redirects here. No confusion there, given the primary usage Monopoly isn't a proper name and wouldn't be referred to in the singular in this way anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support to match the parent article. History of Monopoly should not redirect to the game, but to either a dab page or Monopoly. --Gonnym (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't "History of Monopoly" phrased that way, with this capitalization, an incredibly weird and unlikely way to look up anything but this page?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Makes sense. Tostie14 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support History of Monopoly -- as a search term, "History of Monopoly," using title case and without a plural would be an incredibly weird way to look for another topic. There is no other term that could reasonably be at that title, which is noted above already redirects here. This is backed up by the fact that a Google search or Google books search for the term only brings up board game articles (or incomplete results that wouldn't be at this title alone, like "history of monopoly capitalism"). I would oppose an outcome that redirects a search term to another page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and collect your £200 when the page is moved.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to History of Monopoly as WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sensible move as argued in the nomination. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move back to History of Monopoly, the article's original title, per Necrothesp, Yaksar, and Netoholic above. That would simply reverse a redirect that has been pointing here with no problem since 2006. To move it as proposed sounds like there might be some game titled "History of Monopoly". Station1 (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support History of Monopoly. Unambiguous in any sensible sense. Should never have been moved. Andrewa (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to History of Monopoly per above. --—Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had a relist under the quite reasonable rationale that editors seem split on supporting two topics. (the folks who supported this move without necessarily opposing the other), would you also be ok with the topic that currently has a majority of !votes, but only slightly, History of Monopoly? No pressure either way, just want to see if we have a consensus!--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, fine with me. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 13:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me also.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. -- Tostie14 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all!, no argument against your relisting rationale, but wondering if this clears things up (I know there is already a backlog of move requests)?--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to History of Monopoly per above rationales. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.