Talk:Ice luge

Ice luges as a drinking game
Two sources discuss ice luges in the context of being a drinking game. The The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English defines Ice luge as "a block of ice used in a drinking game in which a shot of vodka, tequila, or other alcoholic drink is poured down the ice into the drinker's mouth." (see this link.) Furthermore, the book Between the Sheets and Under the Table: The Ultimate Guide to Adult Games describes ice luges in the context of being a game, and the book is entirely about adult games (see this link).

Therefore, this topic appears to qualify as a type of drinking game, albeit a simple one. I've added the following sentence to the article: Ice luges have also been described as a type of drinking game.


 * Sources

— Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't access these sources online. Those links are simply plot summaries or reviews of the books.  A game requires an opponent, so it is not a game weather or not it is simple.Curb Chain (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Those references above clearly go to Google books, where one can read the pages of the books that are relevant to this apparent topic (Ice luge as a drinking game). If these sources aren't already in this Wikipedia article, they should be. Guy1890 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean I can't see the page.Curb Chain (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, and, quite frankly, I don't believe it. Why would you have Google books blocked? Guy1890 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have it blocked. I can't see previews.Curb Chain (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that doesn't make any sense, and, really, it doesn't matter in any event. Wikipedia is not about satisfying the concerns of one individual editor above & beyond all other editors. Allow me to summarize what the references in question say:
 * The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English (page 543) says that "ice luge (noun)" is "a block of ice used in a drinking game in which a shot of vodka, tequila, or other alcoholic drink is poured down the ice into the drinker's mouth US, 2001".
 * Between the Sheets and Under the Table: The Ultimate Guide to Adult Games (pages 31-32) says that "Ice Luge is a block of ice about three feet high with a canal of sorts running through it" and "Booze from a bottle, or bottles, is poured through one end, and your head is positioned at the other to drink down what comes out."
 * For heavens sake, I don't drink, and even I've heard of ice luge. What (another) silly thing to edit war over. Using Google Books for citations is a completely non-controversial issue...there's even a tool to help one generate citations from it. Guy1890 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you verify this. You can't access the previews.  This could be anyone's guess and you could be making it up for people who can't read the cites.Curb Chain (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can certainly access the previews. I clicked on each of the two links and the requisite pages appeared.  (By the way, games don't require opponents.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you access the previews?! I can't do it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Games require the element of unpredictability. Solitare is a single player game and does require complexity.  It results in unpredictability in the whole progress of the game.  In single player games such as solitare, the opponent is probability.Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What a joke. Yes, just about anyone can access Google Books on the Internet. As for any other silly assertions about "games" here, take it up on the talk page of this page. Don't expect to move any minds though. Enough of your nonsense Curb Chain...farewell... Guy1890 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The dictionary I can access in preview in the other editions scroll wheel.  Does this affect the reference?  But the adult games source I can't seem to find previews for.Curb Chain (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you try clicking the links in the references given above? Are you using a non-standard browser, or a tablet/phone? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That you can not personally access a Google Books preview for a printed source does not entitle you to say that source can't be used. There is no requirement that any Google Books links ever be added in the first place; it's merely a convenience link. It's the same as if you were trying to interfere with anyone using any sources your local library doesn't carry. postdlf (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did try clicking on the links in the references given above. I am using chrome but can only access previews of the dictionary but not the adult games source.Curb Chain (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think some previews might be limited to display in certain countries. But do you understand that has nothing to do with whether a cite to that book is a valid reference? postdlf (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are asking me even if there was not no google link, in the reference, that the reference is valid, I agree with that. Rarely do I remove references and its associated material, for some oddball reason.  I always include an edit summary, so are you asking me to assess my intentions if they are bad faith?Curb Chain (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your second sentence means. But this sentence of yours from above is why I asked if you understood that the Google Books previews were not required for a proper citation: "How do you verify this. You can't access the previews.  This could be anyone's guess and you could be making it up for people who can't read the cites." So now that you've agreed that a citation to a print source is valid even without a Google Books preview, the issue is resolved, though it's bothersome that you removed sourced content on the claim that the sources were "ungermane to the topic" but later admitted you didn't even consult those sources. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, to explain my edit summary to that diff: yes, at the time (and I still can't access the preview (except for the different editions for the dictionary)) I could not verify the information, I couldn't access the preview, and if you ask me has my viewpoint changed, yes it has. Have I learned something?  Yes I have.  How do I defend removal of the sourced information and the source?  I felt that the editor added the link in a bad faith way, and I retract the intentions I had when I made that edit.  I was probably zealous in the high standards I hold articles so when I saw the hyperlink I expected some way to verify the information.  I couldn't find it so I erred on the side of caution and removed the source and information.  I had a book about adult games, and a dictionary.  These two source seemed to me WP:SYN so I felt the source and its sentence did not improve the article.Curb Chain (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, "Are you asking me this question to see if I am acting in malice?"Curb Chain (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)