Talk:Spit (card game)

Format
Just wondering, am I the only person who thinks that this article sounds a bit too much like an instruction guide? Overuse of the 2nd person and complete focus on gameplay just make the article sound... weird. Does anybody agree with me? I want to know before I start to change it.--Montaced (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree about the 2nd person usage. And the article is quite heavy on the gameplay to the point of sounding more like a how-to guide; I think if the article included more information about the history or development of Spit or its cultural relevance or something of the sorts, it would balance things out, but since I know nothing about the topic, I'm afraid I'm pretty useless here. Waverly (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok
I think this article is ok overall. The nature of a description of a card game with many variants is that much explanation is needed. I do NOT think it should be moved to Wikiversity. And it should not be removed. I first learned to play split in 4th grade, and this is folk knowledge -- it is Subject-specific common knowledge. This article is NOT a quotation, an exceptional claim, it is not contentious. (See policy When_to_cite and You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

I appreciate the Wikipedia authors who have taken the time to put this information about Spit. While I would welcome the addition of secondary sources, I do NOT think this article should be removed because of a lack. Rather, we need people to spend the time (as they have) to carefully write out the rules. Hence there are no citations... unless you want to interview some elementary school kids. We do not need to cite some books or magazine articles for the rules of spit. It's like looking up citations for making smores. Wxidea (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

merge?
should this be merged with Speed (card game) ? I think they are different names for the same game.... 174.16.200.131 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Speed comparison
I rewrote the section of Speed relating to Spit. Might copy it here. Alanf777 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio
I've removed the bulk of this article as most of it is a copyvio from http://www.pagat.com/patience/spit.html. There was a concern raised that they might have copied us but waybackmachine proves they had it before Wikipedia was even started. I've not revdel'd the versions as there might be salvageable material there but editors should note that they will be responsible (not the original uploader) for any material they restore. Dpmuk (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed material
The following material has been removed as it is not appropriate for the article but is recorded here as it may be of interest to other readers: anecdotal evidence traces it back at least to the 1940s in Texas. Bermicourt (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the reference to origin in the 1980s in the UK. I realize this is completely anecdotal but I know someone who played as a child in the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:63B:211E:D186:7E08:121D:23A1 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That kind of anecdote is very useful as a starting point for researching whether a source might be incorrect, but it isn't enough by itself to conclude that the source is wrong. (It's possible, for example, that your friend had been playing the older game of Racing Demon, and has conflated the two games somehow.)
 * It's prompted me to check my Parlett, though. I have an earlier edition than the 2008 one cited here, and in that one he doesn't explicitly suggest that Spit originated in the 1980s, only that he was taught the game by his daughter around that time. --Belbury (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it may well be the case that there is an earlier origin, but it still needs citing. In the meantime, perhaps we should amend the text to more accurately reflect Parlett.Bermicourt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)