Talk:Spider (solitaire)

Chance of Winning
The bit that says the chance of winning is only about 1-in-10 needs to be clarified. R.J.Lintemuththe author of the page this bit of data was culled from was referring to four suit Spider Solitaire. On "Medium" Difficulty in the Windows XP version, however, there are only two suits, and - while it may not be representative - I have a better than 80% win rate after quite a few games. So either I have improbably hit only the winnable games, or the "medium" (two suit) difficulty has a much higher winnability. Either way, this section needs clarification.


 * Naturally "medium" difficulty has a higher winnability than "difficult". JudahH 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Winnability" is certainly determined by the version of Spider that you play. My experience with XP version is about a 60% win rate on difficult (about 1000 game test sample). XP allows unlimited undos up to the point of dealing a new row or the point of last completion of a suit. Though I do not have significant data set for Vista, you can take undos past deals and suit completions, so I would think the possible win rate is even higher. 1/10 win to loss ratio sounds pretty low, unless you play without undos, which I believe ruins the spirit of the game; the undos allow you to move cards and discover what is underneath every possible car to play, in effect crawling through the deck like a spider (whereas with Free Cell, you have view of the whole deck, and can make your play strategy in its entirety before you make a move).Rijzor 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * with an open deal or unlimited undo, I can win >90% of 4-suit double-deck spider. closed-deal no-undo drops my success down to about 20%, but I haven't refined my strategy much (it's tedious to play a full game).  I once read somewhere that almost all spider deals are winnable, but I don't remember where.  I'll try to track it down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I would assume that "chance of winning" means no redealing (e.g. if you get five Kings on the first deal) and no undos. Even with those restrictions, however, after extensive research (132 games on "difficult" in Windows solitaire), I can report a win rate of 28%, significantly higher than the 10% the article mentions. I know Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, but since the reference the article cites gives no source for its estimate, and since in practice it appears to be incorrect, pending further clarification, I will take out that sentence. JudahH 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the winnability should only be based on a) the full game (not the crippled versions with less colors that MS uses) and b) without cheating (undo beyond the point that reveals information not available beforehand). One could argue that even a regular undo should not be allowed. If I play that way, I do also get a win ration of roughly 20%, a little lower than JudaH. --Schoelle (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't really call something "cheating" when it's a scored feature of the game. Windows version 6.1 (included with Windows 7) allows unlimited undos back to the original deal (with each undo scored as a move).  Under this version, every game is winnable (I'm currently on a streak of 69 wins; my previous streak was 189 wins, and was only broken when I accidentally exited in the middle of a game).  You might have an argument that this aren't the "best" rules to use, but it isn't cheating within these rules... and this is certainly one of the most widely distributed versions of the game.98.71.104.64 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

After 1 month playing the XP version, I have yet to lose a game! All one has to do is 'save' the game on exit and neither a win nor loss will register in the statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.243.201 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After playing both the Linux and Windows(4 suit) versions over the last ten years, I have yet to find a game that is not ultimately winnable - after endless undos and restarts. I find this truly remarkable. I doubt it is a feature of the game, but it may be due to the method used to deal in these two versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.215.153 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing mark
I have removed the "Inappropriate Tone" tag from this article; I don't see the problem. Maybe it has been cleaned up since the tag was applied? In any event the tone seems better than average for Wikipedia...please specify what still needs fixing. Thanks,--Shyland 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed
Things might have been different when it was posted years ago, but now we have two relevant policies: WP:FORUM and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is a place for neither. I have removed this post, as it was a violation of both. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I also removed the thread that came after this one, as it was definitely a WP:FORUM violation that added nothing to the article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge Arachnid Solitaire into article
I propose that the Arachnid Solitaire article be merged into this article. As Arachnid is just an implementation of Spider, I'm not sure it is notable in its own right. Regardless, I doubt there is enough to say about Arachnid, which is not repeated here already. I'll go ahead with the merge on Monday 13th August 2007 if there are no objections. Thanks - Papa November 1 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bytebear 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Completed merge. Section may still need a little tidying.  Thanks - Papa November 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing links in conformance with external links guideline
The external links guideline states that links to normally avoid include those that do "provide a unique resource..." Several links which on their face violate this principle keep being inappropriately added to this article. Having several links that are nothing but "play online" can't possibly be justified. On top of that, the answer to "why these" among the many play online possibilities out there is mostly because the solitaire articles have been COI spammed to death over the years. Since "play online" links are redundant and provide no unique resource, and since there are so many possibilities, either none should be listed or the solution the external links guideline reccomends, linking to the appropriate Dmoz category should be chosen. Once the DMOZ category is added, the issue is settled. 2005 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The links on this page have been stable now for nearly two years. Any link that voilates the policies of advertising, plugins, etc., are removed immediately.  The remaining few links are different versions. I personally prefer the Green Felt version.  Other people have expressed a preference to other versions, so as long as they don't voilate the the above criteria, they have remained.  The link section is stable, so they do not "keep being inappropriately added to this article," as you claim.  You say there are "so many possibilities," but in fact, the history of this page shows that very few are actually added, and those that are blatent spam are removed immediately, shows this fact.  I challenge you to find all of these versions floating around.  I have looked, and found maybe 7 versions.  There are not dozens or hundreds of versions out there.   There are very few, and of those, only the ones listed have no spam or plug-ings.  So my summary given 4 months ago still stands, and nothing has changed. That's called stability.  Do not make it out to be anything else. Bytebear (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stable is irrelevant. The fact that you prefer one version also is irrelevant.  Three duplicate ways to play are a blatant violation of the external links guideline.  Additionally your insistence on duplicating Master Rankings link is just weird.  Obviously that will continue to be reverted. Don't add the duplicate again. Then finally if there are only seven versions of playing online, these three should not be linked just because they were inappropriately added, and adding the other four is not the solution.  You know very well having these three play online links directly, obviously violates WP:EL.  The second and third play online links add literally nothing.  You know this so I'll give you a chance to remove them yourself. 2005 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stable is absolutely relevant. Your objection was that the list was going to become to large.  Stability completely refutes that.  Second, a guideline is just that, not law.  Third, I didn't add the Master Rankings, and don't really care about it.  It was left when others deleted the other links, so I assumed that it was not part of this discussion.  If you have an objection with that link, then discuss that link, rather than throw all the links into the same pot.  The three links do not voilate WP:EL in any way.  There is no adverstising, and no needed plug-ins.  Your objections are unfounded.  You claimed there were dozens if not hundreds of versions floating out there.  I see you are backing off of that claim.  Each link is perfectly acceptable.   If you bothered to read the entire content of the Talk discussions, you would see that.  It has been hashed before, and it still hasn't changed the fact that these links are appropriate. Bytebear (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stable is never an issue. If spam has been there for two years, it should be removed on sight.  My objection is not that it would become to large.  Do not make stuff up.  Yes it is just a guideline, but it has widespread consensus throughout the encyclopedia.  You can ignore it for your own purposes, but obviously the links will be removed by those who do follow the guidelines of the encyclopedia.  You DID add the Master rankings duplicate link twice.  It appears you don't pay much attention to where comments go, or the actual edits you make, but I'd suggest you get accustomend to clicking the history link at the top of the page you can see what edits do and have entailed.  I'm not backing off any claim.  It doesn't matter if there are seven or seven hundred places to play.  ANY number more than ONE is redundant.  Multipe play links add nothing to the article if there is one play link already.  The guideline is crystal clear.  If it doesn't add anything, don't link.  You are just ignoring the guideline for unstated reasons. I've read the talk discussions.  These links have been COI spammed and are redundant to each other.  They violate multiple guidelines.  You can ignore the guidelines if you want, but that doesn't mean other editors who do follow the guidelines can't remove blatantly inappropriate links. 2005 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read through WP:EL and see no criteria that would exclude these links. Can you please quote the specific section you think these links violate?  The only thing I can see as potentially at issue is promoting a specific website, which is not the case when offering several versions from various links.  If we exclude one site over another, then we would be in violation of promoting a specific site.  Otherwise, I see no other criteria that would exclude them.  I have gone point by point through the list of violations, and none of them apply to these links.  Maybe I am missing something.  Bytebear (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I already quoted it: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource..." Obviously two or four or eight or 800 "play online" links provide no unique resource beyond the first play online link.  Different background colors or whatever are just a matter of taste.  That's a slam dunk for starters, but then the links meet none of the criteria for what should be linked, while were COI spammed so fail point 4 of the links to be avoided.  A single link to the Dmoz solitaire category points people to places where the game can be played online or via software.  Listing multiple redundant links is inappropriate.  Choosing one play online link, since there is no offical site, is also inappropriate because there are multiple places where people can play, so just having the Dmoz link solves every issue.  The COI spammers won't like it, but they don't get their way, which is why we have guidelines. 2005 (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The full quote says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The links do provide a unique resource that cannot be contained.  I know you are suggesting that only one link is acceptable, and I tend to agree, but I also think it favors one website version over another.   I see no COI issue unless you are supporting one link over all others.  By having multiple links, it avoids COI issues, as people can choose and not be forced to one site over another.  It seems to me that you are pushing a single site, and perhaps you are the one with a COI.  Maybe we should review each link.  I don't see spammer activity, at least not often, and if the site is geared toward ads or revenue, I would delete it.  None of the three sites are in this category.  Favoring the Dmoz link over the others is a clear violation of WP:EL by favoring one site over others.  Not to mention it does require special downloads to use.  Bytebear (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A Dmoz link is exactly what is suggested by WP:EL. The fair solution to not favoring one site by linking to all sites is beyond silly, so I am changing the links to what the WP:EL suggests.  It would be nice if you abided by that guideline. 2005 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A Dmoz link is a horrible idea. Dmoz is horribly out of date and it takes years to add new links to Dmoz. Also they only suggest this when there is a long list of links. 2 to 4 links is not a long list of links therefore linking to Dmoz is not appropriate.
 * I myself agree with Bytebear here. Having 2 to 4 links to implementations that comply with the WP:EL guidelines is the best approach. Several reasons in the guidelines show that the World of Solitaire and Greenfelt.net links are valid:
 * [From What Should be Linked] Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.
 * Clearly implementations of the game contains much more detail than the Wikipedia article can ever cover. Also it wouldn't be desirable to put the game right on the Wikipedia page itself so therefore an external link is called for.
 * [From What Should be Considered] Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
 * Linking to 2 to 4 implementations of the game meets this criteria. Each implementation will probably interpret the rules, board layout and gameplay slightly differently and this is information which can only be given to the wikipedia reader through the use of an external link.
 * In addition, the external links to do not violate ANY of the 'Links Normally to be avoided' section. Therefore these links are fully valid and useful to the reader.
 * The only potential argument to be made against them is conflict of interest. This is something that 2005 and other users brought up on other pages about my adding of World of Solitaire to those pages. Although I strongly disagree with the policy, I decided that I would no longer re-add links to World of Solitaire myself when other editors have removed them. Instead what I have done is follow existing guidelines on this matter and propose the links on the Talk page. In some cases other Wikipedia editors have seen the value in these links and have re-added them to the page themselves. In other cases I could not get any other editors involved besides myself and the one wanting the link removed. I tried to point these editors to this Spider talk page where this has been discussed already, however they did not appear take me up on that. Since I am not the one involved in the actual removing or adding of this particular link in this case, COI is not an issue in this case. Therefore Bytebear is correct. Sembiance (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Spider Solitaire (Windows)
Strong support this merge. There is nothing super notable about the Windows version that requires it to have its own article. A simple section here mentioning any major differences is all that is necessary. AnmaFinotera 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on External Links
Four editors can not agree as to whether the links to the various online versions of this game a necessary or appropriate addition to the external links section

This article is on a game, what better external link than the actual game? The only restrictions I'd make are no commercial webpages and keeping it down to 2 or 3 links chosen for quality, speed and compatibility. This is an excellent example of the strength of an online encyclopedia and I encourage the exploration of possibilities. Calibas (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a link to where to play appropriate? Should th blackjack article link to the Bellagio?  This is an encyclopedia.  Linking to sites where to play is not the point.  And encyclopedic article is.  Most of these links offer zero information about the game, but rather are just game screens on commercial sites using the Wikipedia as a way to troll for customers.  Additionally, if someone wants to offer pointers to where to play, then the only possible link is a Dmoz category.  The idea we should promote one where to play link over another is silly.  2005 (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold text
 * This is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Normal encyclopedias have neither videos, nor weblinks, nor millions of editors. Why should we restrict ourselves by the old standards of what an encyclopedia is?
 * The whole idea behind an encyclopedia is to spread knowledge. What better way to do that for a card game than to actually play the card game? As I suggested originally and per Wikipedia standards, don't allow links to commercial websites, which solves most of the problems you bring up. I don't see what wrong with linking to sites like http://worldofsolitaire.com/ where there's no commercial gain, it's just another free website like Wikipedia. Imdb.com is a commercial website and there's links to it on just about every movie page. Calibas (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How many such links do you want? One, four, twenty?  Wikipedia does allow links to commercial websites. What it doesn't allow are links that are essentially only commercial.  The fact that this link currently is non-commercial really doesn't matter since just because there is not a guidline against soemthing doesn't mean everything non-commercial can be added.  Also, there is clear commercial gain by linking to such a website since that site just became more valuable and could be sold.  If there was one single play online site for a game, then sure that could add value.  But just picking one is silly and almost always colored by self-interest, and having more than one is purely redundant.  There is an easy solution, normally, to just link to a Dmoz category that has several such "play here" sites listed. 2005 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will repeat myself. I have had this article on my watchlist for over 2 years.  I have never seen more than 5 or 6 links ever.  The list is very stable.  Occasionally, a commercial link is added, but it is quickly removed.  I have no problem adding 30 links if they are unique and offer options to users who may not like the same version as another user.  This isn't a paper encyclopedia.  We aren't limited in resources.  We can add anything we want.  If the list really did get out of hand as you suggest, then we just make a break out article called List of online Spider Solitare sites.  But, as it stands, your fears are unwarrented.  Bytebear (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for comment, as an edit war is brewing. These links have been deemed valuable and useful and not in violation of WP:EL.  Please stop reverting. Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you doing? Have the courtesy to answer what I've written above, and stop your bizarre reverting and double linking.  It is never appropriate to have two links to the same page in external links.  Please stop this strange behavior and post a constructive reply. 2005 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch the personal attacks. I didn't see your comments above, because this was the most recent discussion on eternal links. Bytebear (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you need to stop making personal attacks. If you genuinely didn't see or bother to look for the comments above, then you should just apologize for your comments and move on. 2005 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did and do appologize for not seeing your above comments, but I will remind you that it is customary to continue the most recent discussion at the end of the talk page. Bytebear (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's customary to look at the edit history of a page to see if someone has posted before stating they have not. And the most recent discussion is just above where I posted, not here. 2005 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say customary, but more necessity, because people put news edits in the middle of the talk page on very old discussions, but that's neither here nor there. Obviously you and I are never going to agree.  I recommend we have outsiders view the links and get more voices in the discussion.  This childish bickering has got to stop. Bytebear (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE leave the links alone. Every three or four months someone gets a bee in his or her bonnet and starts deleting the links for some reason clear only to God. MANY people on this talk page have commented on the usefulness of the links and they "seem" not to violate Wikipedia rules, so let's just leave them alone!! PLEASE?206.74.61.67 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many times COI spammers add their redundant links, they are still obviously not appropriate. Anyone who wants to remove links that are redundant and inappropriate can, regardless of how many times they are fantically spammed. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no redundant links, and none of these links amount to spam. They are perfectly appropriate.  They do not violate WP:EN in any way.  Do not remove them. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redundant means characterized by similarity or repetition. Three links that offer nothing but the ability to play the same game are redundant.  The guideline specifically prohibits that, as does common sense.  2005 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline also says we cannot give preferential treatment to one link over another. In this case, the "redundancy" is necessary to not play favorites or allow for COI. Bytebear (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that they are not redundant because despite 2005's claims that they are the same, they are actually not. Each site provides a slightly different implementation of the game rules, has different features, looks and behaves differently and thus are not 'the same' and can not be considered redundant. This is in addition to Bytebear's comments that we should not play favorites. Also given what I said in the 'Bringing links in conformance with external links guideline' section and all the other comments made by other editors, I think it is pretty clear that the links should remain.Sembiance (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular external link adds little value to the article, and since it seems to be your only reason for wanting to contribute here, it makes little sense to re-add it. Rray (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First we are not discussing a 'single' external link. We are discussing 2 to 4 links. Also, you are incorrect that it does not add valid. Several people here have mentioned that indeed it does add value and should be included, thus you are in error with your assertion. Lastly I ask that you do not make baseless accusations about my reasons for contributing to Wikipedia. You should stick to the current discussion which you have not provided any firm reasons backed up by wikipedia rules.Sembiance (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree about whether or not the link adds value. But your disagreement does not equate to my being incorrect. And I haven't made any "baseless accusations". One need only review your editing history here and your talk page to get an idea of your motivations behind the addition of these links, and your motivations are quite relevant to this discussion since you have a clear conflict of interest. Rray (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you against this particular link? Would it be acceptable to have that single link, and remove the others?  My argument is that it keeps one link from taking precedence over others.  What if the Green Felt creators came on the board?  Would that suddenly negate that link?  You are playing favorites with a bias, and it needs to stop. Bytebear (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL. One relevant guideline is item #4 on the list of links to normally be avoided. Links normally to be avoided include "links mainly intended to promote a website". The user who originally added that link made no contributions to the Wikipedia beyond dropping links to his website, and when he was encouraged to contribute in other ways, he said he would prefer not to contribute here since his links had been removed. That's clear evidence that the link was included mainly to promote a website. Rewarding that behavior by re-adding those links encourages spammers. Dozens of websites offer online solitaire games. We shouldn't link to them all. Linking to the appropriate DMOZ category is the suggested and correct approach. See item #3 of links to be considered in WP:EL.
 * I am not playing favorites, and I don't have any kind of bias. That's a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith on my part. Personal attacks actually weaken your argument rather than strengthening it. Rray (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No argument at all has been made to ignore the external links guideline, other than someone's interest in promoting their website. Three redundant links is silly, and the conflict of interest defense of them is beyond childish.  The external links guideline states a solution to this circumstance, which is the Dmoz link.  the fact that perhaps some of these links aren't in Dmoz is a pure "who cares" thing.  Only the COI webmasters care.  We are here to make an encyslopedia, not promote somebody's site.  the redundant links will be removed, as will any others that are spammed.  The Dmoz link covers everything that needs to be covered: information, software, play online.  There is no reason the solitaire articles should be treated differently than the rest of the encyclopedia, even if somebody wants to get traffic from them. 2005 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could see your point *if* the promoted website was in violation of other WP:EL issues, and as I recall, the World of Solitaire was on this page for at least a year, and I never saw a problem with it. For the record I have no connection with any external solitaire website.  So, do you think the all of the IMDB websites should be removed as well?  They certainly have more violations of WP:EL than the links on this page. Bytebear (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a spammed link survived doesn't mean it should have. There is only one IMDb website so I don't know what you mean by that. 2005 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be taken into consideration that Dmoz is years out of date and does not respond to addition requests. I thought the idea behind wikipedia was to be relevant, up to date and useful to the reader. Removing these links would make Wikipedia less relevant, far less up to date and far less useful to the reader. It would be one thing if relevant, current links could be added to Dmoz and then you could link every page in Wikipedia to Dmoz. However that's not the case and thats why so many Wikipedia articles contain direct external links. This should be no different in this case. Also Dmoz links are only to advised to be used where you have a lot of links. I think it's reasonable to say that 2 to 3 links does not constitute 'a lot'. I'm doing this out of a motivation to help people and to enhance Wikipedia to be more useful to the readers. These links accomplish this. Since user 2005 and Rray does not appear to be willing to compromise at all, my hope is that other Wikipedia editors will be able to solve this. I guess if in the end it doesn't get resolved, that just means wikipedia is less relevant, less useful and less up to date than it could be, and if that's the way it is in the end, well, so be it.Sembiance (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you have a clear conflict of interest in this case, perhaps it might make sense to let the rest of the community decide about the inclusion of your links, and work on something here where you don't have a conflict of interest? Since the bulk of your editing here has been to insist on the inclusion of a link to your website, your contention that you only wish to help make Wikipedia more relevant and useful rings a little hollow. (Especially since you were encouraged to contribute in other ways here and decided you weren't interested in helping here unless you were allowed to promote your site here.) Rray (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a conflict of interest, and I think you and 2005 are more upset at the user than at the content. The motivations of a user does not negate the content they present.  Do not attack the poster.  Attack the content.  Now, why do you feel this particular link is less credible than the others? Bytebear (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that you have a conflict of interest; I pointed out that Sembiance does. I suggested that he let people who don't have a conflict of interest discuss this. Do you think that's somehow an inappropriate suggestion to make?
 * I'm not upset by anything, and I haven't "attacked" anyone. Your theories about my motivations are irrelevant to the discussion. Sembiance's conflict of interest is relevant - see #4 of links normally to be avoided in the external links guidelines for why that's relevant here.
 * As far as why the link shouldn't be included, links to sites where you can play video games are of lower value than a link to a DMOZ category that includes links to several such games. That's what's suggested by the external links guidelines, and that's what should be implemented here. Why do you think it's so important to include a link to a particular playable video game? Rray (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Zmoz is appropriate for long lists. 3 links does not apply. And, having read all of the comments, I have found Sembiance to be very polite and willing to work on an appropriate solution. He hasn't removed competing links or disrupted the page to support his links above any others. I will accuse you of not assuming good faith. I have seen nothing but good faith from him. Bytebear (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course three links apply. The external links guideline addresses this point explicitly.  These links were initially spammed anyway.  This obstinace is really around the bend now.  Solitaire articles are no 'special'. To start with, play online links are not listed in the monopoly article, or the chess article, or the online poker article, gin rummy article, etc etc etc.  Editors with thousands of edits in all types of articles have pointed out the guidelines, while the only counter arguments are a single purpose account saying "my website is good" and another editor saying "I like it".  The redundant links are inappropriate in several ways and a Dmoz link is the called for solution. 2005 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are my points
 * The WP:EL specifically says "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the External links template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."
 * A list of three does not qualify as long by any stretch of the imagination.
 * This list has been stable for well over a year, nearing two, and has never been in danger of being too long. Consensus was met long before any edits by Sembiance.
 * The dmoz is not comprehensive, and out of date, and currently does not duplicate these links, so is not a mirror image, and fails on this point.
 * The dmoz is a suggestion for dealing with long lists, not a requirement, and certainly not a standard.
 * These links have been on this page for nearly two years, maybe longer. I have been watching a lot longer than you, and they were not put on as "spam."  That is simply not true. And spam doesn't apply anyway, unless you feel that IMDB is also a spam site.
 * Monopoly is a copyrighted game, and as such WP:EL is in violation because of that reason. A reason that does not apply to this or other solitaire games.
 * I have never used "I like it" as an argument. In fact, I have said that I prefer the green felt version, but feel the inclusion of various versions disallows for favoring one link over another.
 * Having multiple links actually fulfills WP:EL which says that no link should be favored over another. Having three links validates this rule.  I will repeat, THREE LINKS IS NOT A LONG LIST.
 * Feel free to debate these points, but your point are not valid. These links simply do not violate WP:EL. Bytebear (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly making false assertions just makes even reading you messages an unproductive use of time. the assertion that these external links have been "stable" is utterly fantastic.  The edit history of this page contains edit after edit after edit after edit of spamming, deleting and respamming.  The flash redirect thing that you yourself deleted more than once has been added and removed from this page many, many times in the past two years.  Stability is no criteria at all, but the assertion this page has been stable is either beyond ludicrous, and you know that.  The Dmoz suggestion in fact is standard, and it is suggested for a reason.  I think you neeed to go to the esternal links page if you want to try and reinvent the guideline.  Also the argument Dmoz isn't comprehensive is ridiculous.  Not only is Wikipedia not comptrehensive, it is NOT supposed to be.  Dmoz is a link directory.  It has links to play online sites.  You need to understand that we are not here to protect some site links that were spammed here repeatedly.  Dmoz's link list is way more than comprehensive enough.  2005 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Responding here to request for outside opinions at WP:EAR. Regardless of any wikilawyering via WP:EL on both sides, none of the links in question is content-relevant and imho they should all be left out of the article. You see, this is still ostensibly an encyclopedic project. Articles and every single bit in them must be committed only to discuss, explain and illustrate the topic at hand. Everything else is inappropriate, and any "play online" links are unacceptable unless the website in question is itself the focus of a dedicated article or section or otherwise indispensable for a complete and accurate article. My 2 eurocents. Dorftrottel (ask)  09:17, March 23, 2008
 * The external links guidelines indicate that The DMOZ link should be used until consensus is reached concerning the addition of the other links. So far two users think these links should be included, and one of those doesn't count because he has a conflict of interest. Three users think these links should not be included. That is clearly not a consensus to include these links, so I've removed the disputed links until consensus is reached.
 * Regarding Bytebear's bullet points above, none of them are valid reason to include these links. DMOZ not being comprehensive or being irrelevant is a debate that should be brought up on the external links guidelines talk page, not here. Saying that the list consists of "only 3 links" isn't a valid reason for including them either. The bullet point about the list being stable isn't accurate, but even if it were correct, it's not relevant. Just because links haven't been removed for over a year doesn't mean that they're appropriate for inclusion. Having multiple links might fulfill WP:EL, but only if the multiple links are appropriate.
 * Drawing comparisons to other game articles is perfectly appropriate here. We have an article about poker, but we don't include links to every placed on the Internet where you can play poker for free. We have an article about chess, but we don't include links to every place on the Internet where you can play chess online. It's not just the game of Monopoly where links to online play for free sites aren't included Rray (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So now you are arguing removal of all external links instead of the one in question. You are shifting arguments because there is nothing that violates WP:EL for these links.  Nothing says that a game implementation should be avoided.  And DMOZ is only suggested (not required or even recommended) when a list is long (not the case here) or when it is duplicated in the DMOZ (also not applicable).  I am sorry, but I still don't believe these links are inappropriate, and seeing the shift in your position, I see you cannot find substantial reason to remove them.  Bytebear (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable .
 * Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
 * Links normally to be avoided: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * These are indeed several aspects of WP:EL that are violated by all of those links. Moreoever, all but one are Java-based, which is decidely discouraged anyway. However, I think we don't even need EL to arrive at the conclusion that "play online" links are simply not encyclopedically justifiable. Can we move on now? Dorftrottel (warn) 09:34, March 24, 2008
 * Actually, all are JavaScript based, a de-facto standard for web browers. None of them require log-in, special downloads, or contain advertising of any kind. There is nothing in WP:EL discouraging "play online" games, other than a warning about copyright violations,].  Online game play does indeed "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Feature article".  The links do not need to be encyclopedic.  And I still hear the argument that "Links should be kept at a minimum."  there are only three links.  This is not excessive or a "long list."  Again, no voilations.  I would like to know, specifically, what " aspects of WP:EL that are violated by all of those links" because I have not found even one aspect.  Bytebear (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only question is whether or not those links provide anything of encyclopedic value that couldn't be conveyed with words, which is not the case here. Dorftrottel (talk) 05:31, March 25, 2008

MANY folks on this discussion page and on the edit history page have defended the links and I don't need to repeat their arguments. The list is pretty stable (except that three--and only three, as far as I can tell--people keep deleting the links and making those of us in the majority restore them). If you disagree with the links, that is certainly your right. JUST DON'T USE THEM, THEN!!! Don't prevent those of us who do think they are appropriate and who do use them from having access to them! Problem solved! 206.74.61.67 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So far there is no consensus to include the links, and there has been no valid reason given for their inclusion. Three Wikipedians have given valid reasons for deleting these links, one (Sembiance) has argued for their inclusion based on his conflict of interest, and one (ByteBear) has argued that they should be included but gives no valid reason why they should be included. Now an anonymous use insists that they should be included, but gives no valid reason for inclusion. This is disruptive editing and should stop. Rray (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That simply is not true. I have given reasons straight from WP:EL as to why they are valid, and shown countless times that WP:EL voilations do not exist. Bytebear (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * EL is a guideline and not set in stone. Maybe this very discussion will give rise to an amendment to EL. Dorftrottel (complain) 05:33, March 25, 2008

The anonymous user (me) referred you to the lengthy discussion of their usefulness above. Since you obviously didn't take the time to go back through the discussion, I'll repeat it again: the links provide readers an opportunity to play the game they've just read about without having to so elsewhere in search of the game;  in an "existentialist" sense, one cannot really "know" a game if one has merely read about it, but must play it in order really to know it, so the links provide an "encycolpedic" function that is otherwise missing;  since Wikipedia is on-line, there are no space limitations which might prevent their inclusion;  as long as no commercial sites are linked, the Wikipedia rules are not violated. Your contiued insistence on deleting the links without bothering to familiarize yourself with the history of their inclusion as detailed on this page is inappropriate. PLEASE STOP DELETING THE LINKS. If you feel you have some valid points to make about why they shouldn't be there, make those points here while LEAVING THE LINKS IN PLACE so that the discussion is not shut down arbitrarily at your whim. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the entire discussion, thanks. Please don't shout by typing in all caps; it's rude. The guidelines are that the links should not be included without a consensus for inclusion, not vice-versa. A DMOZ link is the suggested solution. The links can be included on the talk page here for discussion purposes, but I don't think anyone misunderstands or disagrees about the content of the sites. They consist of free-play versions of the game. Rray (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As has repeatedly been noted above DMOZ is out of date and cumbersome. It would also require users to leave Wikipedia in order to find information that could readily be included at the end of the article. There is no consensus, but the CLEAR (caps have a purpose and I'm using them purposively) majority of those writing here want them. You have a problem with majority rule (or do you just like imposing your will on others)? Continuing to remove the links without greater support (both in terms of number of supporters and in terms of logical argument) is really inappropriate and childish. You should at least attempt to control yourself and not do it.
 * The external links you're wanting to add also require a user to leave the Wikipedia, so that doesn't even make sense. If you disagree that DMOZ links are appropriate, the right place to discuss that is the guidelines page for the Wikipedia external links guidelines, which is where that approach is recommended. And Wikipedia doesn't run on a majority vote; it works on consensus. Right now there is no consensus to include the links. (There's not a majority either.) In the absence of consensus, the links aren't supposed to be included in the article. Calling me "childish" and accusing me of lacking self-control is a personal attack, which doesn't strengthen your argument or help you achieve your goal. Rray (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concensus is not required to add something to Wikipedia. That is just nonsense.  Half of the articles on Wilipedia are not written with consensus. Bytebear (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is policy. Not a guideline. Policy. SeeWP:CONS. Rray (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then let's start wholesale deletion of articles (or parts thereof) on which there can never be consensus: evolution/creation?  Kennedy assassination?  Disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa? Bermuda triangle?  [BTW, your covert attempt to re-drag Collectonian into this debate smacks of desperation.]206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, Rray does not understand how consensus really works. Bytebear (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack to ignore. Rray (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was nothing covert (or desperate) about it. Collectonian is an interested party, and his talk page is available for everyone to see. Had I wanted to be covert, I would have contacted him privately instead of publicly. I'm just going to ignore any further anonymous personal attacks from you at this point. Rray (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with bringing people into the debate, but only bringing people in who are on your side is one step below sockpuppeting and is not recommended. Instead, the proper procedure would be to collect all the names of everyone ever in this debate (going back years) and notifying them all of the issue. Alternatively you can request neutral parties to review the issue, via WP:RFM or other official chanels. Bytebear (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Had Rray bothered to check, Collectionian is a "her" not a "him." I fail to see how my arugment about deleting articles on which there is no general agreement is a "personal attack." If Rray simply ignores everyone who disagrees, Rray will have a lonely life. Rray's point about my "anonymity" is illogical. Is Rray on your birth certificate? 206.74.61.67 identifies me just as much as Rray identifies you. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I merely described your behavior and seem to have hit a tender spot. Perhaps you have had troubles like this in other areas of your life? To state that Wikipedia operates on consensus is ridiculous; if that were so, most of the articles on it could not exist (this one certainly could not) as there simply is no consensus and never will be. The links are useful. MANY, MANY people above and on the edit summaries have stated that this is so and (comparatively) a tiny number of people continually delete them apparently just because they don't like them. Can't you spend your time more productively than deleting things other people use??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.61.67 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore any further anonymous personal attacks at this point. They're not helpful, useful, or even interesting. Rray (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm repeatedly amazed at folks who pick a fight and then say they didn't want to argue! So passive/aggressive. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything is better than posting a comment that doesn't even try to contribute anything constructive. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 05:34, March 25, 2008

no consensus for inclusion
It's clear there is no consensus to have these links, and in fact everyone except a website owner and one other editor oppose their inclusion. A consensus is need to have links, not the other way around, so it's time to move on. 2005 (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

2005 is demonstrably wrong to claim that only a website owner and one other editor oppose the links. In the discussion above, I count myself (206.74.61.67), Bytebear, Sembience, Calibes, Ghaller, and Plinkit as supporting inclusion. That's 300% more folks than 2005 acknowledges. There are others who support inclusion in the edit summaries, but I don't have time to count them. The bottom line: those who don't like the links need not use them and are not harmed by their inclusion, but those who use the links are indeed at least inconvenienced by their removal. I thought Wikipedia was about making more, not less, information available! 206.74.61.67 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The concept of consensus is not really important in this discussion, as it cannot possibly override WP:NOT and other p&g. The only consensus we need is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link repository. The online games have no encyclopedic value, every relevant bit of information from them can and should more appropriately be included in text form. Oh, and Wikipedia is most definitely not about "making more information available", it's about compiling an encyclopedia from reliable sources. Something that does not carry any relevant information must not be included, like those links. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:32, March 25, 2008
 * Again, you lose a battle, so you shift fronts. Having a working model of the game is informative. It would be the same if we had a link to a working model of the respitory system, or an interactive floorplan of the White House.  Just because it is interactive, does not make it uninformative.  And three links is not a "repository."  Bytebear (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Again, you lose a battle, so you shift fronts." — ? What are you talking about? Also, calling an online game link "interactive information", that's a new one. It's an abuse of Wikipedia's intended purpose, and that's that. Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:01, March 25, 2008

Well, all of your "points" have been refuted above, but I'll repeat. This is a page about a game. I think a sound argument can be made that one does not "know" a game unless one has "played" it. Of course, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link repository; no one has suggested otherwise. The question is: do Wikipedia entries provide links relevant to their subject matter? The answer, overwhelmingly, is yes. I agree wholly that consensus in unimportant; those who wish to delete the links keep raising that red herring. The problem with the links is that the definition of "relevant" is unclear. Some--like me--think an unobtrusive pathway to playing the game on a non-commercial site is "relevant" and others do not. I don't attempt to "force" others to adopt my point of view as anyone who dislikes the links is free to ignore them. The "deleters," on the other hand, do attempt to force their point of view on the majority of us in this discussion who wish to keep them. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to 2005 or me? What ""points"" are you talking about and how exactly have they been "refuted"? Dorftrottel (complain) 19:03, March 25, 2008

I was talking to Dorftrottel concering his/her most recent post before this one immediately above. The "points" are your arguments for deleting the links. They have been refuted the only way it is possible to refute arguments--logically. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, spamming from your IP address does not make you a different person than when you log in. There is a clear majority, on TWO talk pages!, to not have these links.  And beyond that, there is no consensus to have them, so they are not going to be included, despite the illogical and frankly bizarre assertions that the Bytebear and Sembience keep hurling up against the plain language of the guideline.  Time to find another place to try and promote your website. 2005 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

2005's remarks above are intemperate and rude; they clearly violate Wikipedia rules on civility. To characterize contributions to a discussion page as "spam" is so illogical that I can only point out its absurdity. For 2005's information: I have no website. I barely know how to turn a computer on and could certainly never build or maintain a website. I can't even use Excel. I am, in fact, a wee bit of a Luddite, as I am old enough to remember rotary dial telephones (hell, I'm STILL using a rotary dial telephone), black and white TVs, and the handheld electronic calculators which were heavy and became hot to the touch if used to add a long list of numbers. If 2005 is correct that there is a clear majority against the links, s/he should simply list here the user IDs of those on each side of the question and provide a count. I think such a count would show that those in favor of the links outnumber those opposed to them by a margin of around 3 to 1 (that margin certainly applies to this discussion page, but I acknowledge I haven't actually counted those on the edit summaries for this article). I don't "log in" because I am not a "registered user." I object to any website collecting the information from me necessary to "register." Wikipedia certainly does not require editors to register at any rate. I don't want to be a grammar cop, but the correct usage is "try TO promote," not "try AND promote." 206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't run on "majority rule"; it's not a democracy. Decisions are made based on consensus, which is not the same thing as majority rule. See WP:CONS. The links should not be re-added without a consensus that they belong. Leaving the links out doesn't damage the article in any way; several good faith editors think that including them does. Continually re-adding those links when several people object to them is spamming. Rray (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't as these links are not spam, and I have every right to add them as you have to remove them. And since consensus has not been met, you have no right to remove them.  They do no harm, and new editors can use the links and decide if they are useful or not. Bytebear (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since their inclusion is disputed, they should not be included. The burden for building consensus is on the person wanting to add the links. Removing them does no harm. Re-adding them before there is any kind of consensus is a brute force tactic rather than a consensus building tactic. Contrary to your post, adding links without consensus is spam, and it does harm the Wikipedia. Valid reasons have been given as to why the links don't belong. Even the interested party who responded to Sembiance's RFC agrees that they shouldn't be included. Rray (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Using loaded words like "censorship" in your edit summaries just weakens your argument rather than strengthening it. This isn't about censorship. It's about disallowing webmasters to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their websites. Rray (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Using loaded words like "spam" doesn't do you any favors either. These links are not spam. Using the term as a scare tactic makes your point all the less valid. The RFC only included you, 2004 and some other guy that 2004 messaged privately to enter the fray. Next time, try getting some unbiased voices instead of stacking the deck. Bytebear (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a scare tactic; it's a reasonable conclusion based on your editing behavior and the anonymous ip's editing behavior. "Censorship" has nothing to do with this issue, but repeatedly re-adding external links when several other users disagree is definitely spamming. The *only* possible harm that could come from leaving those links out of the article while the matter is discussed is that the sites in question might receive less traffic or exposure. So what other conclusion should one draw? At any rate, I've asked for administrator intervention here, since discussing this seems to be useless. Rray (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see your behavior as censorship (and potentially vandalism), since there is no violation of WP:EL. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that censorship involves trying to suppress ideas. (Free solitaire games hardly constitute ideas that someone would want to suppress.) Keeping this article free of webmasters' attempts to promote their websites is just a matter of deleting spam. Censorship has nothing to do with it. Vandalism is even more far-fetched. Rray (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no affiliation with any of these links, and cannot be classified as a "spammer." Bytebear (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one said you were affiliated with the sites. Someone might be puzzled at your insistence that the links be included while a discussion regarding their appropriateness was ongoing though. Rray (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * my position is simply. game implementations do not violate WP:EL.   If Pac-Man were copyright free, I would be perfectly fine with a link to an implementation of it as well.  and I would fight as much for that site.  I would also fight for inclusion on the chess article. It's not that it's an implementation.  It is whether the link has advertising, special downloads, required log-ins. I also remind you that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy, which implies we should err on the side of inclusion, particularly when the only argument you seem to have is a COI with an editor. Bytebear (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep using words like "fight" and "battle". Could we reframe this as a "discussion" instead? And accusing me of having a COI isn't helpful either. All the personal attack stuff is just distracting and irrelevant. (I've been called passive-aggressive, lonely, a censor, and a vandal now. I've also been accused of having a COI and of wanting to "punish" someone. None of this is relevant to why it's so critical to include links to those websites, even when their inclusion is disputed by numerous good faith editors. Surely they could be left out while the discussion is ongoing, anyway?)
 * EL is a guideline, sure. But consensus is a policy. When it comes to promoting other websites, we should err on the side of leaving them out unless there is a consensus to ignore those guidelines. Item #4 of the external links guideline is that links intended to promote a website should be avoided. Since these sites offer no information but a playable version of the game, I don't see how their inclusion in the article is critical. I don't see why someone would insist repeatedly that they should be included when there is a significant amount of opposition to their inclusion. (I also don't understand why you keep repeating that these links don't violate WP:EL, when item #4 on the links normally to be avoided has been pointed out over and over again.)
 * And even if that weren't the case, a consensus should exist that the links be included. "Not violating the EL guideline" is not a reason for inclusion. Lots of websites might not violate guideline; that doesn't mean that all (or any) of them should be included. Rray (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UNBREAK The burden is always on the person who wants to include the link. These links are not necessary, and therefore should stay out. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; the persons who've been trying to keep the linkfarm trimmed back clearly understand this basic principle. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are both non-valid arguments for the retention of material in blatant violation of our guidelines. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  05:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the links should go, or stay gone. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, here is my two cents worth: I think the links should stay. They do no harm and provide a service/use for those reading the entry. I agree that this whole thing should be reframed as a discussion or even argument rather than a fight, but some people seem interested only in having their own way and not in presenting points for others to weigh. I'm sorry that folks have called Rray unpleasant names. I would point out that the history page of this discussion shows that one poster (I won't use the username, but it is easily discovered there) deleted one poster's comments in a way that seems antithetical to the spirit and purpose of a discussion page. Here's what I would propose: let's leave the links in place for some reasonable period of time to see whether A) their number grows unreasonably, B) users/editors continue to object to their presence (and I mean those other than the folks whose disapproval has already been amply articulated here), and/or C) some piece of the sky falls.  How about if we just leave the links in place for, say, four months and at that time see whether feelings on both sides continue to run as strong and deep as they appear to do now?  Wouldn't that be better than what this has devolved into?  216.13.88.86 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing no harm is not a reason to include the links, and being useful is not a reason to include the links. We err on the side of not including links in these situations. The main reasoning that keeps coming forward about including the links seems to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM, and WP:USEFUL. But after getting several neutral admins to contribute to the discussion, the huge majority agree that keeping these links is inappropriate. Unless someone comes up with some new, compelling reason why these links should be included, we all need to move on to something more productive (IMO). Rray (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rray's characterization of the "votes" on this matter as being a "huge majority" in favor of removing the links is simply not supported by "counting" the different users on each side of this question based on the comments on this page. If we are not actually going to have a "vote" and "abide by" the results, can't we agree that the numbers on each side are irrevelant (or at least stop misrepresenting what they are)?? 216.13.88.86 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't misrepresented the numbers, and I'm baffled that someone could assert otherwise. This isn't about a head count anyway. The links are inappropriate, and no valid reason has been given for their inclusion. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat invalid arguments like, "They don't do any harm" and "I think they're useful." Rray (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this already. Two more editors (Orangemike then DrNick) without a conflict of interest come to the discussion and note the links should go. The clear majority of non COI editors oppose the links and/or recognize there is no consensus for having them.   Certainly no consensus exists to have them.  It's over.  Find another way to promote your website. 2005 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To 2005: It is wildly wrong to assume that anyone who wants links is merely promoting a website. This is absolutely unfounded. To assert COI for anyone who supports the links basically boils down to an invalid ad hominem argument. I count ONE user who has a tie to a website; all the others make intellectual and logical arguments for their inclusion. To Rray: I went back through this discussion page and counted the unique users for and against and those for come out on top. Anyone who wishes to do so can count them; the only way Rray can be baffled is if Rray hasn't counted the users. Rray is perhaps correct that "no harm" and "useful" are not valid arguments, but then ignores "real" arguments such as that providing the opportunity to play the game is a form of "experiential knowledge" not otherwise available in the article; if Rray has a counter-argument to the "real" arguments in favor of keeping the links I for one would like to hear it as I am open to being convinced that my stance in favor of keeping them is wrong. 216.13.88.86 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning behind why these links should be included, but a link to the DMOZ category, which lists several places where people can gain this "experiential knowledge", has the same outcome. Your reasoning does not explain why these three links should be included instead of a link to the appropriate DMOZ category, which is the suggested and common solution in this type of situation.
 * At this point, it really is time to move on to something else. I asked for neutral parties to weigh in from the administrators' noticeboard, and everyone who responded from there agreed that the links were inappropriate. The links don't comply with our external link guidelines, they provide little value, and they're not as useful as a single link to the DMOZ category, which lists literally dozens of sites which offer not only free-play games, but also additional useful information. Rray (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to understand Rray's point of view, but am having trouble coming to grips with it. If Rray thinks DMOZ is an appropriate way to deal with the situation (I disagree because DMOZ is cumbersome and out of date), why doesn't Rray add such a link to the article?? Also, Rray points out (correctly) that neutral parties were asked to weigh in and "everyone who responded" agreed that the links should be removed. That's somewhat misleading as "everyone" was just two people. Even counting them, the "vote" is still in favor of retaining the links. If Rray really thinks it is time to move on, perhaps the way to express that most effectively is to leave the issue alone and stop reverting the page to versions which don't include the links???? 216.13.88.86 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is currently protected, so no one is reverting anything. The last time the links were removed, an admin removed them. That admin included a "nomorelinks" note to the article as well.
 * Wikipedia doesn't run based on a vote. Please review WP:CONS, which explains how decisions are made here. I don't understand the urgency of including these links, and no one has offered a valid reason why these links are critical to include here. DMOZ being "cumbersome and out of date" is inaccurate, unexplained, and irrelevant. The links there work and they're on topic, so it's a perfectly reasonable compromise. (Unless you're a website owner having trouble getting listed in that DMOZ category and you're mad that someone else is going to be getting this traffic.) Rray (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith Bytebear (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't assumed bad faith. I made an observation regarding why someone might think that DMOZ isn't an appropriate compromise. Rray (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am, frankly, REALLY tired of both 2005 and now Rray asserting or implying that anyone who supports the links must be promoting a website. No evidence of such is offered and thus the comment seems merely intended to discredit an arguer rather than to refute the argument. I note that nasty comments seem to have "shut up" several posters above during the discussion and that is a shame. Rray's statement above that "no one has offered a valid reason why these links are critical to include here" is off-base in several ways. Arguments have repeatedly been offered above; the fact that Rray doesn't argree with them doesn't render them invalid. Also, I think most Wikipedia articles include material which could not fairly be described as "critical," so criticality seems to be a red-herring here. If Rray thinks that DMOZ is not cumbersome, I invite Rray to try to add something there and then report back here on how it went! I've read the material on consensus, thank you, and it just doesn't seem to apply here where the long, detailed, sometimes heated discussion indicates that there is no consensus. I also am tired of people saying it is "time to end this discussion" ONLY when their particular view of the subject is prevailing on the article. I frankly don't understand why a number of good folks are so incensed about the links. No one is ever forced to use them, but those who want them cannot use them if they are deleted! If the discussion must continue, then, that's OK, but it should continue with the links still in place until consensus is achieved. 216.13.88.86 (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sembiance has already said he owns one of the sites. Your single purpose contributions suggest you are either him, or also have the same conflict of interest.  Except for Bytebear, you and the two others supporting inclusion of these links have less than 30 edits that are not adding external links to Solitaire articles, while the nine or so people opposing the links have well over 30 THOUSAND.  Consensus has been reached.  There is no consensus to have these links.  Move on with your life. 2005 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I point out that 2005 for the fifth time refuses to accept the comments of others as being offered in good faith as Wikipedia rules require. I recognize that Sembiance acknowledges ownership of a site and has a COI. I hope 2005 will take me at my word that I am neither Sembiance nor have a website involved in this matter. It is certainly revealing that 2005 wants his opponents to move on with their lives only when his/her viewpoint is currently holding the floor but refuses to move on with his/her own life when the other side is predominating. I repeat: I am not Sembiance and have no website in the matter. If 2005 were correct, then Sembiance is logging on both by alternate usernames and from geographically widely separated IP addresses: I ran the numbers and one poster is from an IP address in Myrtle Beach South Carolina and I'm posting from Ontario in Canada. Maybe Sembiance should be starring in the new movie Jumpers??? 216.13.88.86 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which of these links is the most accessible? IE usable by most in terms of software needed? Someoneanother 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All of them run fine within IE and other JavaScript enabelled browsers, with no plugins required. Accessibility is not at issue. Bytebear (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case why can't a single link be used, which isn't compromised by COI, to illustrate how the game plays? Someoneanother 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because not everybody will agree what the link should be, and COI editors could push an agenda. It makes no sense to choose a single individual link.  A link to Dmoz is a single link to a resource that offers several choices. 2005 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again 2005 assumes COI in the case of anyone who supports having links. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules (and 2005 is eager strictly to apply a mere guideline, but feels free to ignore an actual rule). I think a small number (less than 10, say) of links is perfectly appropriate; such links are to be found (without controversy of any kind) on other articles about games. Indeed, if one takes pages on celebrities or musicians to be an appropriate parallel, most of them I randomly checked have links to what are in fact commercial websites and no one seems to care. If 2005 is right and people don't agree, well, people seem not to agree on issues on other Wikipedia pages and no disaster has occurred. Why can't the links here just be left alone as they are on these other pages? 206.74.61.67 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In cases where the inclusion of the links is objected to by a significant number of editors, the default is to leave them out of the article. Rray (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But the goalposts keep changing. Just above 2005 says the reason not to have links is that not everyone agrees to which links should be in place and that folks with COI would push an agenda. 2005 makes no mention of the objections of editors. What is really the standard and why can't it be applied consistently across Wikipedia?? 206.74.61.67 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The goalposts have never changed. The standard to include something is consensus, which is Wikipedia policy. See WP:CONS. Rray (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other game pages
I just checked: just as this Spider Solitaire page has been "protected" to prevent folks from putting in links to the game, the page on Chess has been "protected" to prevent folks from REMOVING links to play the game!! No consistency at all!! 206.74.61.67 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I took four minutes and looked around Wikipedia. There are links to play games on the pages for Dominoes, Go, Chinese Checkers, Canasta, Reversi, Minesweeper, Space Invaders, and Pac-Man. In none of these cases is there any controversy whatsoever on the discussion pages for the games as to whether the links are appropriate. When I have more time, I'll do a more thorough search of Wikipedia pages and try to give a more comprehensive list. Why must Spider Solitaire be an exception to what seems to be common practice on Wikipedia pages devoted to games? 206.74.61.67 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I took the discussion to the talk page on WP:EL. We need consensus as to whether game implementations are acceptable links.  I say they are, and based on other game pages, so do a lot of other editors. Bytebear (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A recent edit note re-adding the links said: "Leave the links in place as there is AMPLE parallel use of them on other pages about games." You should be aware that "parallel use" isn't a valid reason for including the links. This seems to be a variation of the argument "Other Stuff Exists", which is not a valid argument for including that "stuff" here. (See WP:OSE.)
 * Continuing to re-add those links when there's no consensus to include them is just edit-warring and spamming. I can assure you that it's not helping to build a consensus that those links should be included. Rray (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't an argument for this article, but it is one for WP:EL in general. The question isn't about these particular links any more, but on any link that is an implementation of a game.  We have a stipulation for YouTube videos that is the closest thing we have to a rule about such content, and it says that as long as the content in question doesn't violate any other issued with external links, then it is acceptable.  We do not have a specific ruling on this issue, so it should be discussed.  However, it should be done on the WP:EL talk page. Bytebear (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be discussed there at this point. Thanks for pointing that out. Rray (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles currently link to sites to play games is not an indication that Wikipedia endorses that at all, just evidence that we get spammed a lot and that we haven't gotten around to undoing the damage in all palces yet. The WP:EL policy is pretty clear on this, and always has been. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:EL is not clear on this subject at all. YouTube videos are allowed, and they have no inherent encyclopedic value in and of themselves.  This isn't about a list of links or spam, because the restriction used on this article have been very strict in not allowing commercial versions, or otherwise violating external link parameters.  In other words, each link, in and of itself, is not in violation.  Only, the concept of having a link to a playable version is in question, and there is no explicit restriction on this. And, again, this discussion should be on the talk plage of WP:EL. Bytebear (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I is clear. YouTube videos are only linked to IF they provide encyclopedic information, which, as the rules there state and have stated, is rare/infrequent. This is an open and shut case. Links to play games are never allowed, period. DreamGuy (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotation, please? JudahH (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove DMOZ link

 * Should the DMOZ link be removed as well now? WP:EL clearly states it should only be used 'while' consensus is being achieved. Also WP is not a repository of links. DMOZ is also YEARS out of date. Due to all of these reasons, the DMOZ link should be removed as well.Sembiance (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The DMOZ link should probably be kept. The guidelines don't indicate that the "only" time DMOZ's use is appropriate is when consensus is being achieved. Including one link to an appropriate DMOZ link isn't going to make the Wikipedia into a repository of links, either. The question isn't really whether or not DMOZ is years out of date. If the category being linked to consisted of a significant number of broken links it might be inappropriate to list, but I don't think that's the case here.
 * I took the liberty of creating a new section on the talk page for discussing whether or not the DMOZ link should be removed. Rray (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went through the links in the main category and all the links in the solitaire video games subcateogry. Only one link didn't work, and that might be a temporary situation. All the links listed in DMOZ seemed on-topic, so I don't really understand the objection to listing the DMOZ category in this article. Rray (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A dmoz link is a standard solution on many articles where there are a lot of similar links. Nothing is perfect, but it's a fine solution, especially since it works indefinitely with the no more links template. 2005 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the DMOZ link is fine, they could be on every article on wiki for all I care. It's the WP:EL version of the SEP field. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The link offers information and materials beyond the what's available here - after a few minutes looking at some of the links I found free versions for download, free trials of commercial games, some interesting quotes from books (particularly about Roosevelt being a fan) and playing tips. It's impartial, it's useful, that'll do nicely. Someoneanother 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:EL section on information and value beyond what the article has does not apply to links provind downloads, or playing games online, etc. It's for ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION, seeing as how we are an encyclopedia and not a web directory. I personally don't care if the DMOZ link stays or goes, but helping people to go play a game is NEVER a valid argument for inclusion as a link. So that's one more vote for the consensus on that, should it ever be needed. DreamGuy (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spider Solitaire Vista.png
The image Image:Spider Solitaire Vista.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

TOP SCORE
Don't ask me how, but I just made 1363 points in 137 moves. Ironically it took me more than usual to solve it, I also use Ctrl+Z. So the limit is not 1300 as the article say. http://imgur.com/AgDxz.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.162.129 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 24/8/2022 Have just played and got a score of 1371. Don't know how but have been playing for years. Previous best was 1287. 80.0.116.235 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I modified the theoretical high score to be 1256 based on the game setup and scoring formulae reported in the article which I confirmed by game play. A total of 800 points are added to the initial 500 for a complete game. Not fewer than 44 moves are required to complete a game because, at the start, there are 44 cards to turn over and one move is required to turn over each. The question is then whether it is possible to construct a game that can be completed within 44 moves. Since the Windows version does not require that moves be exhausted or even that a move be made between the seven hands of the game, it seems obvious that there are multiple deals that could result in only 44 moves. Whether that is true or not, 1256 is a better value than 1300 since it reflects a known lower limit to the number of moves.--WikeJEC (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a known bug in which the user sometimes gets 100 points for clearing a suit, then uses undo and does not lose the 100 points... thereby giving the user the ability to get an "impossible" score. This version has a simple scoring formula: if it took you 137 moves and you won the game, then your score was 1163.  (FWIW, I don't think there's a citation needed for the 1256 perfect score... the math involved is pretty straight forward.)98.71.104.64 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've played the Windows version 6 of Spider Solitaire recently after reading this.
 * Although I am no expert - most often my score hovered around 1200 - I scored 1289 even though I made a few imperfect moves and, more importantly, did not use the undo function at all. I'm baffled at that score because the math used above is basic. I wonder: was 186.136.162.129 who had the score of 1363 playing a different version, or is there another "undocumented feature" besides the one 98.71.104.64 described?
 * The article mentioned "a theoretical maximum of 1254 points" together with "A bonus of 100 points is gained for completing 4 sets of the same colour", which are both misleading; I've never seen that particular bonus in any of the games I've played, so I removed that part.Twistlethrop (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody suggest why the theoretical maximum score for the Windows version was changed from 1256 (as above) to the (apparently) unjustified value of 1280 (by anonymous user 112.141.133.11 at 09:58 on 9 December 2018) ? Each of the 44 face-down cards MUST be turned, either by moving the card on top of it or by getting a completed suit removed from just on top of it. To me this means an absolute minimum of 44-7 = 37 moves, which (if feasible) would lead to a score of 1263. Heraldica (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I found an argument that seems to work by dtilque on the Straight Dope forums which gives a minimum of 46 moves - every card that starts on the tableau that is not a king must be moved at least once, since it must finish in a pile that has a king. I've adjusted the article accordingly. Arcorann (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Layout wrong?
Am I missing something here? For Spider Layout it says "The Tableau consists of 10 stacks with 6 cards in each stack with the 6th card face up."

But it's only the first 4 stacks that are 6 cards, the remaining stacks are 5 cards?Aluminium Colours (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wanky dates
The article states that the game originates in 1947 and it also states at the same time that it was FDR's favorite solitaire game. FDR, as we know, died in 1945. How can a game be someone's favorite if the game is invented only after this person's death? 2001:14BA:9F01:EA0C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it--I just noticed that and was going to post a version of what you just posted. I'll try seeing which is correct. Alden Loveshade (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See Dead President Plays Games immediately below. Alden Loveshade (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dead President Plays Games
The linked source says Spider (solitaire) was invented in 1949, and that it was a favorite of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However amazing people might think FDR was, I find it hard to believe he played a game invented after he was dead. (If somebody has a reliable source that clears up this contradiction, feel free to fix it.)

As I found the online source which said it was invented in 1949 (the article previously had the date as 1947 which conflicts with the source as it is currently), I removed the following (you can see the full editing in the source editing):

Its potential for deep analysis make it one of the best of all solitaires, and it was said to be a favourite of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Alden Loveshade (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)