Talk:Zendo (game)

Specificity of rule information
Hello, all. I have added some clarity to the rules information, simplified some language, and created a "Philosophy of play" section for the cognitive benefits of playing Zendo. This last section is most important, as the critical thinking skills that the game builds are probably the most prominent reason the game continues to be played to this day. See the designer's Zendo design history for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asgardiator (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 September 2015‎


 * Heads up that you're playing the game wrongly if you're not using mondo calls or guessing stones. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation
User:Spshu blanked the rules sections last June for being "copyrighted rules". Searching for fragments of that original version, all I can find are some Wikipedia mirrors (including some Books LLC publications which I took at first glance to be Looney Labs books, but which, no, are just Wikipedia content).

User:Asgardiator wrote up an incomplete version of the rules last September, and I've just expanded that today to include some rules they missed out. But if the June 2015 version wasn't a copyright violation, we should go back to that. Can you give a source that it's been copied word-for-word from, Spshu? (So far as I understand it, explaining the rules of a game is not a copyright violation if that explanation uses the writer's own words.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First they removed also since they are the rules on top of the copyright issue. As [Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games#Structure|complete rules are not to be including]] in WP game articles as "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.". That fl108 page at the copyright.gov website is not the law and copyright laws protect against Derivative work being made with out permission of the copyright holder. Rewriting the rules to the game in your own words is derivative of the original work, thus a copyright violation. Else, I could just rewrite The Lord of Rings (or other famous works) in my own words to cash in with out much effort. The copyright.gov website is a website of the Library of Congress which indicates "Materials published on Library of Congress websites are intended for reference use only. They are not legal advice, and may not represent the official opinion of the United States Government." Spshu (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Does the WikiProject draw a line anywhere on which games to give rules for, and which not? It reads to me as if it's talking more about complex commercial boardgames (eg. Settlers of Catan) where including scrupulously full rules about setup and gameplay would be excessive. Wikipedia seems happy to give full rules for games like chess and poker, and it feels appropriate to do so. I'd say Zendo fell at the chess/poker end of that, being a simple game whose rules are freely available online. But perhaps the line is generally drawn at "game which also had a commercial version". --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't an exception give about rules. Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists|Other stuff exists]], just because there are full rules for chess and poker is not a reason for Zendo to have them. That just means editors have not been ignoring WP guidelines/policies. Spshu (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although, I should point out that chess and poker are game systems (poker being a game system within another game system, playing cards), not just individual games. Spshu (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)