Jump to content

Talk:Rock paper scissors/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Rock/Paper/Scissors

Did you know that native shamans, and the shamanic foundation (Michael Harner) play something called "The Bone Game"? It's somewhat psychological, having to guess whether the other person has the bone in his closed hand in front or in his other hand behind his back. I didn't see anhything about it in you homepage.

Blessings, The Obnoxious Monk Please, someone explain to me how paper beats rock. I still can't figure it out, and it really isn't in the article. I mean, rock would go right through paper, and scream out "owned".. well.. I'm getting sidetracked, but you get my point, don't you? So what if it covers the rock, it's not like it's not going to suffocate or anything -- rocks don't breathe.

Try using it with gestures sometime. Take your symbol and use it. So the scissors guy will place his two fingers on the other persons paper with a cutting motion and say "Scissors cut paper". "Paper wraps stone" Take your flat paper hand and wrap it around the rock fist. When you do that you will see that the paper has a clearly dominant position, as you have neutralized that fist. Remember that the concept is mostly symbolic anyway. The Steve

Oddest Location Observed Game Used (as a nonparticipant)

  • 1988 Kabukicho Shinjuku Tokyo - 2 men played Jan-Ken-Pon to volunteer for a sex show act that involved a see-through lucite platform and felatio. I was pretty stunned to see how calmly adults played the game. - ZenPupDog

South Park episode...

In South Park Episode 112 (Mecha-Streisand), Cartman challenges several characters to 'Roshambo' (Pip, Kyle, and Streisand). However, he describes the game as a nad kicking contest. One player kicks the other in the nuts as hard as he/she can. They take turns doing so, until one can't take it anymore. Is their any other evidence of this game?

In Israel, besides Rock-Paper-Scissors, kids more commonly choose with a game called Pair or Single (some say it's called Moira in English).

My SO and I use rock, paper, scissors to decide all kinds of mundane things, like who pays for groceries (it all evens out at the end of the month so that we both pay half, but actually getting our Interac cards out is such a pain in the butt).

One time we did this in Safeway at about 10:45 at night. The cashier was just about to get off her shift and she looked pretty tired. My SO and I both had our wallets secreted away, and so we used rock, paper, scissors to decide who had to pay that time.

I don't think I've ever seen a cashier trying harder not to laugh. =D

As seen on The Simpsons: LISA (thinking): Poor predictable Bart. Always chooses rock. BART (thinking): Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock. Lisa throws paper, Bart throws rock. BART: DOH

removed aim bot plug

it's simply spam [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]]

Tournament re-ordering

Kudos to Q0 and various anonymous for cleaning up the citations and external links sections. Also to NowahBaloon for adding USARPS tournament information. It is my understanding of Wikipedias style guide (Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles) that subsections should follow the same "principle of least astonishment" as pages - As such, USARPS which is chronologically newer (and, if I've read their site correctly, uses WRPS standardized ruleset) should not be the lead-off subsection. I have moved this section to 9.2 accordingly.

I also removed the unreferenced "critcism" sub section as the only references to the "hoax theory" I could find were from the [Message Board] and were (if I am not mistaken) left by the same Xyzzyplugh who had created the initial section, which I had re-edited to NPOV. If anyone else shares this opion, please revert and re-write as I was unhappy with my NPOV attempt.

Changes were made to the USARPS material. Removed was the reference to 50k being the largest purse in rps history. In 2004, Mei Eden water in Israel hosted a tournament for 1 million Shekels which is about 220k US. I don;t have a link to this but here is the copy from an email sent to me by the brand manager of Mei Eden Water: Eyal Cherry, a 13 year old boy, won the first Israeli National Tournament in Rock, Paper, on August 5th. Eyal took home a prize of 1 million shekel, approximately $220,000. He is from a low income family in Beer Sheva, the city in which 2 suicide bombers killed 16 people earlier this week in 2 simultaneous bus attacks. The line "and a spot in history" was removed since it is meaningless. Also, the reference to "someone" winning a car was taken out since it is too vague.

Original use of the phrase 'Ro sham bo'

I have heard this phrase used in ireland many a time and it it for a completely different game!!! you can see some examples if you look up ro sham bo ireland, it is basically a competative game of kicking in the balls. all the words have irish meanings so i am wondering if this could be the original use? probably not but I would like to know how this very distinctive phrase came about in two very different ways. 89.100.159.102 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Old messages

As for Rock, Paper, Scissors, the content of an English version, a Chinese version, and a Japanese version is too different！ The article is confused！ A Japanese version is the most accurate and detailed.

I would just like to know where the blurb about the rhyme that supposedly precedes the game in Israel is coming from. I pretty much grew up in that country, and of course played countless games of RPS as a kid, and not even once, in any part of the country I've been to, have I ever heard this rhyme being uttered. Rationale for including it in this article?

What about history and geographical spread of the game? Did the game exist before the invention of paper and scissors? In Denmark the game is played as defined here (same "weapons"), but is this true for everywhere? (The CIA factbook seems a little sparse on this topic).

Obviously it is also played here in Australia, yet I've only ever known it as "Scissors, paper, stone". I wonder why we reverse the order of objects...? MMGB

Because you are antipodean. Doesn't your water run out the tap backwards, too? --MichaelTinkler

I am NOT anti-podean. I am quite fond of anything with feet. - MMGB

Here in my part of Canada we call it "Paper, Scissors, Rock". Guess I'll set up another redirect... --Stephen Gilbert

Here (in the UK) I've always come across it as "scissor, paper, stone" --AdamW

Here in the US, I've always heard it "Rock, paper, scissors." --Chuck Smith

That could be seen as psychologically revealing... ;-) In the UK we give the order with strongest first, in the states you have weakest first... Tarquin
Ironically, Tarquin, the whole point of the game is that no one is stronger than the other...more physchology for ya. Ed Cormany
yes...... I *know* that. But when you give the three things in a list, they are either successively conquering or losing. Look: Stone (loses to) Paper (loses to) Scissors. Or Scissors (defeats) Paper (defeats) Stone. Now do you see what I mean? -- Tarquin 09:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Conversely it could be seen as optimistic to end on the strongest (so to speak)... To use the NZ example, it could be seen as "You think PAPER is good? Well try SCISSORS! You think scissors is good? Try ROCK!" And rock does appear to be the strongest-seeming, the main "upset" in the game is the lowly paper beating the powerful rock, as per hobbits beating dark lords in the LOTR variant. User:Caleby can't be bothered signing in. 203.118.189.153 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


No one will ever know what the real name of the game is. I have had this argument numerous times and noone seems to agree. About half of Chicago says its "paper, scissors, rock" and the other half says its "rock, paper, scissors". Any other combination doesn't quite roll off the tongue. -- Moe from Chicago

In New Zealand we call it "Paper Scissors Rock" although some people call it "Rock Paper Scissors" - Matthew

A similar game called hunter, shotgun and tiger uses more exaggerated gestures. The players turn away from each other. On the count of 3, the players both turn around towards each other showing one of the three gestures. An aiming gesture is the shotgun. A roar with two raised craws is the tiger. No gesture is the hunter. Since the gesture requires big movements, it is more appropriate then Stone Paper Scissors when there is an audience watching from a distance. It is funny to watch the cheaters trying to change a gesture at the last minute. Hunter wins shotgun; shotgun wins tiger; tiger wins hunter. -Kowloonese

I was introduced to a similar variant, inended for tournament play in large groups, that has a rhyme with it. The variant I learned was called "Gorilla, Man, Gun" and when the players were back to back, they chanted "Gorilla beats the Man, the Man beats the Gun, the Gun beats Gorilla if you Tie you Die: 1, 2, 3!" You make the appropriate gestures at each point you say a word during the rhyme, as well as when you turn around for the actual match:
Gorilla: Arms raised threateningly over head
Man: Chin nested between thumb and forefinger in the "thinker" position
Gun: One or both hands forming the gun shape (pointing forefinger, thumb up) and pointed at the opponent. Must be held at chest level to prevent confusion between Gun and Gorilla.
Also, on "Tie" the hands are crossed across the throat, and on "Die" make a throat-cutting gesture. Actual play of the game is best with many participants: they break off into pairs and a series of rounds are played, with the losers and those who tie dropping out and the winners pairing up again until only one pair is left. It is to be agreed on beforehand whether they may replay ties or if everyone loses if they tie. Playing this enthusiastically in public areas, espescially those that are normally quiet, is an excellent way to make a spectacle of yourself. -Ryven

Thanks for the mention of Billings' competition, but that link was already covered, and I really don't think it deserves a whole paragraph treatment here. Perhaps an article of its own, though... --LDC

Interesting combination is fictional version in one of the Piers Anthony books, probably Xanth series, of mermen and dragons who play in different elements. Also of interest are other games of chance you can play with your hands and simple elements, one of those is matching: one person (authority) grabs sand in one, both, or no hands, holds it up in a closed fist and next person either tries to match or not match in order to gain inclusion to a select group. ~ender 2003-04-15 03:51

What is the etymology of roshambo? It sounds like it might be French, but I cannot think of anything in French that sounds like that and that relates to the game in any way I can imagine. It might be an Oriental language, but by my understanding of the phonology syllable-final /-m/ means that it cannot be the original form of a Japanese word. -- IHCOYC 02:48 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

In Japanese, a syllabic N before a consonant like B or P sounds like an M. The Japanese name is JanKen (じゃん拳) though. —Frungi 00:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The website at http://www.emf.net/~estephen/roshambo/ says ""The name comes from "phonetic French for Rock Paper Scissors" or so we are told". RickK

Rochambeau was a French general during the American Revolution...I assumed the game was spelled that way as well. I don't know if they are connected though. Adam Bishop 04:27 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OED has neither words, so apparently it's not anglicized. --Menchi 15:10 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The "phonetic French" name strikes me as implausible; to be sure, "rock" in French is roche, /rå∫/, but scissors are ciseaux, /sizo:/, and paper is papier, /papje/, and how to work these into Rochambeau or Roshambo is somewhat difficult to imagine. Perhaps different weapon names are intended, but I cannot imagine what.
Maybe some note needs to be taken of Eric Cartman's variant definition as well; this is where I first heard the word rochambeau applied to any kind of game. This name seems to be a new word in English. --- IHCOYC 14:06 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

Put "stone paper scissors" into google and this page come up as the number one hit, but only out of 534 entries. So I decided to test them all out and was quite surprised with the result. 


"paper scissors stone" - 8,630!
"paper stone scissors" -   215
"stone scissors paper" -   674
"stone paper scissors" -   534
"scissors paper stone" - 2,550
"scissors stone paper" -   201

"paper scissors rock" -  2,740
"paper rock scissors" -  8,620!
"scissors rock paper" -    420
"scissors paper rock" -  1,040
"rock paper scissors" - 34,700!!!
"rock scissors paper" - 29,300!!
Mintguy 20:47 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Even more disturbing is the results just from www.google.co.uk for just UK sites:
"rock paper scissors" - 1,670
"scissors paper stone" - 618
if you limit it to .co.uk domains, "rock paper scissors" still wins:
"rock paper scissors" - 652
"scissors paper stone" - 341
So even just in UK pages, the google test proves that "rock paper scissors" is more common. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:30, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Kowloonese's comment on "hunter gun lion," I've heard that version as "ninja cowboy lion". On that thought, I'd like to do a rearrangement of a couple sections, but since it's on wikipedia:featured articles as is, I'm running it by people first. I want to take the "Variations" section and break it down into subsections, which'll be something like "more players," "different symbols" (including cat tinfoil microwave, hunter gun lion/ninja cowboy lion), "different number of symbols" (one two, rock paper scissors Spock lizard), and "trump plays" (in normal rock paper scissors, a person can play fire once in their lifetime, which beats anything, and can play water whenever they want, which looses to anything but fire). If I don't hear objections, I'll do this next week. --zandperl 15:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---

Where I went to school, dynamite only beats rock, and scissors beat dynamite. This way, dynamite beats rock and is beat by scissors, paper beats rock and is beat by scissors, scissors beat dynamite and are beat by rock, and rock is the clear loser since it only beats scissors. The psychology involved is interesting because many people who are accustomed to the regular "Rock, paper, scissors" system assume that rock is a dominant choice, and fail to see that it has a clear disadvantage. This works especially well when the game is introduced to someone new, and gives veterans of the game a real advantage.

This page shows 'paper' as 'all fingers extended, palm facing downwards or upwards'. I live in Japan and have played this for long time and I know paper can be done 'sideways' and made a correction to include it. Have anyone else ever seen this done?

Revth 12:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

rock paper scissors

Concerning how paper damages a rock, the way I first learned it is that the buzz saw blades used for cutting stone, brick, etc. in construction are actually a paper of about a file folder thickness and they do cut through the masonry, kept stiff by centrifugal force.

Paul Cardwell

The way I've always heard (and seen) it explained is that paper wraps up rock, usually accompanied by a visual of the "paper" hand grasping the "rock" fist. -Sean 18:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is it that water doesn't beat paper in the game discussed where people can add things like 'fire', 'water', etc.? Wouldn't wet paper be easily torn? DX 22:58, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

When I lived in Japan as a kid in the 70s, we played JanKenPon a lot. It was my first exposure to the game, and I was surprised to find on returning to Canada that the English version appeared to lack a comparable terminology. For example, while we always counted Jan-Ken-Pon on the first round of a game, any tie-breaker rounds that followed would be counted Ai-Kode-Sho. Whenever someone cheated by revealing his choice a split-second later than his opponent(s), we yelled Atodashi!

For kids, it was also popular to play the game with your feet. You would jump three times, making your selection on the third jump. Landing with your feet together meant rock. Landing with them parted to the left and right meant paper. Landing with one foot ahead and one foot behind you meant scissors.

Ekc 17:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article as it stands today says that "Jan-Ken-Po" is a Brazilian variant(?). I've lived in Japan and I recall that name as well--should this be changed? At the least the article should mention the Japanese Jan-Ken (if there indeed really is a Brazilian game of the same name), since it's a huge part of their culture (for serious). Also, I never saw it spelled out, but I think I had decided by the end of my year in Japan that the term for a rematch was "moo-ikkoo-deshoo", literally, "once more...?". But I might be wrong.
モオイッコオデショオ? もう一向でしょう? 無一句で主? You don’t seem to be using any standard romanization system. —Frungi 00:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I am Peruvian and have always known the game as Jan-Ken-Po as well. I was surprised to find out earlier this year that it was actually a Japanese term. It's not only called that way in Brazil, is my point.

I once saw a variant in which a 4th symbol, "well" was used. The hand was formed like an O to show a well. The paper blocks the well, by covering the top of it (paper wins). The stone drowns in the well (well wins). And scissors and well are a tie, because neither can hurt each other.

Are there any other interesting variants with more than 3 symbols to add more possibilities?--Sonjaaa 18:00, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I saw a site that has a variant with seven symbols: Rock, Scissors, Paper, Bomb (thumb stuck out), Bird (middle finger), Water (fingers halfway between fully extended and closed), and Chopper (thumb and pinkie).

I can't believe how much time you all put into something so pointless. It's well done, of course, but still...

A slightly more manageable variation has five symbols (Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard). -- Knox Carey

Since this lists the Australian name, is it true that in the UK it's called Scissors Paper Stone? (I thought so, but I wanted to check.) Marnanel 01:40, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard some British-Canadians call it that. -- user:zanimum

I don't understand what the edit by Nunh-huh is supposed to mean. What does sex have to do with that mathematical explanation? I'll quote it here:

"A game option which is 'greater' than another is closer to being optimal, but such a notion does not exist for males in Rochambeau: The relation used to determine which throws defeat which is non-transitive."

Any ideas? Mackeriv 01:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entire last sentence confuses me… —Frungi 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's explaining (why I'm not sure) how it isn't transitive. Let's consider R = Rock, S = Scissors, P = Paper. A transitive property says: R beats S, S beats P, therefore R beats P. Clearly, this isn't the case as it's circular (P beats R), thus it is NOT transitive. Clear as mud now?  :) I'm not sure anti-transitive is an actual mathematical term though. Wikibofh 23:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
No, I meant this sentence: The relation used to determine which throws defeat which is non-transitive. It doesn’t seem to make any kind of sense. —Frungi 00:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I was reading it something like: “…to determine which throws defeat, which is non-transitive.” instead of “…to determine which throws defeat which is non-transitive.” —Frungi 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It makes a kind of sense...but I'm not sure the point. I think it's saying there is no A > B , B > C , A > C relationship. Why this needs to be expanded upon? No idea.  :) Wikibofh 01:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The analysis of Rochambeau changes considerably when you realize that if a girl and boy play, the girl wins, whether she goes first or second. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to one of the violent variations of the game, like the South Park one. Rochambeau (or Roshambo) is just another name for the regular Rock Paper Scissors game. The person who added the Non-transitivity info probably just preferred to use the "Rochambeau" term instead of the Rock Paper Scissors name (the way it was done in the rest of the article. Rochambeau is in no way related to the sex of the players. Mackeriv 01:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, of course I'm referring to the same "kick in the balls" version that the article refers to. Perhaps that particular "South Park" reference should be removed, as it hardly seems germaine. - Nunh-huh 02:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I haven't watched the episode in question either, but a Google search shows several results regarding South Park and this version of the game. In that case, I can't see many reasons to delete the reference. The explanation clearly shows that it's a different version of the Rochambeau game, and not Rochambeau itself (so there's no confusion). I guess the "male" part should be removed from the maths section, since it doesn't belong there. Mackeriv 02:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have seen the episode, and the game is called Rochambeau, but consists of kicking your opponent in the balls. It's hard to see how this is a "version" of Rochambeau! I'm make that clear in the carticle. - Nunh-huh

Names

Is it worth pulling out all the comments on what we call this game into a separate section in the article? I'm thinking "rock paper scissers," "stone paper scissors," "rochambeau," etc., and info about where they're used or any history known. I think the section would contain only traditional names for the game, with ones such as "cat tinfoil microwave" and "cow microbe UFO" remaning in the "variations" section, as they also have different hand gestures and may be newer versions rather than traditional names. --zandperl 02:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've seen other pages where this information is summarized in a table, which seems like a good move. Like for all the naming variations where all that's changed is the name of the possible plays (and maybe the accompanying gestures) we could just have a four column table (for the names of the three plays and the fourth column for notes on changes to the canonical gestures). The variations of names for the game itself could also be made into a table with maybe just a column for the name and a column of notes on the origin. Maybe also a column with the google score?
I've never done a table for wikipedia, so if someone else thinks this is good I wish they'd do it... --Chinasaur 07:30, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I moved them all to an Other name section and linked it from the top. Wikibofh 23:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

On the Lighter Side

Why was this section removed? It was fantastic! Nova77 01:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I added a Japanese variation, yakyu ken, strip janken. Feel freed to add if you have the same stuff in your country. FWBOarticle

Variations cleanup and new "... in Fiction" section

The section on "Variations" is currently a mess with little organization and related things put no where near each other. I'd like to do a significant reorganization there, and pull out a new section called "Rock, Paper, Scissors in Fiction" which would include variations from Piers Anthony, That 70's Show, and South Park. Any objections? --zandperl 23:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Not from me. Get to it :> The Steve

First shot at rework now up. I reorganized "variations" into "cosmetic" and "functional," and moved a few of the other versions into the "related games" section. I did not create an "in fiction" section, though we can still do so. What I'm concerned about right now is that the article is getting large. What size is good for a Featured Article? Should we break this into subpages? Go ahead and be bold and fix it up more yourself. --zandperl 17:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the Janken page should be folded into this one, including the extra round variants ("Look... Over... There!")? 202.173.128.90 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Would this do as a citation for pirate, cowboy, ninja? http://www.comedity.com/index.php?strip_id=14

Cat, Microwave, Tinfoil

I would be interested in knowing how the shapes of these objects are simulated with the hands, if anybody has an idea. I for one cannot contort my hands to look like them. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 05:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The shapes for 'Cat, Microwave, Tinfoil' are the same as for 'Scissors, Rock, Paper' respectively. The 'scissors' can be looked at as the cat's ears. The tinfoil and the paper are both just, well, flat, and the fist for rock is vaguely boxlike. It's varies from the original game only in the way you use your imagination. 59.167.212.209 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)LeonB

Strategy distilled

Sirlin ( http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Yomi.htm ) describes how RPS isn't just used in, well, rock paper scissors, but rather in most strategy games you'll find anywhere ( http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_rps.htm ). He talks about RPS in terms of 2D fighter video games like Street Fighter, but it's frequently referenced when it comes to Real Time Strategy games like StarCraft... and I've seen it in turn based strategy games like Risk. In these war games, the three moves are usually called "Attack, Defend, Expand". Defending beats attacking beats expanding beats defending. I always find it fascinating how simple games like RPS can be used to explain much more complex games. I mean, heck... look at all the milegae Prisoner's Dillema gets! RPS is the same. A simple concept that can be seen all over the place elsewhere.

Not sure this has any place in the article, but I thought it interesting enough to mention on the talk page at least. Fieari 20:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

He also talks about how a strategy game actually gives some of the options a higher value. So if rock gave more points for winning, then it would be used more, but then paper would obviously start to get thrown more as a counter, and as paper starts to dominate scissors will start to get thrown more - which is countered by the original strategy of throwing rock! RPS also applies to Warcraft III the following way: Teching > Massing > Expanding > Teching etc. -Iopq 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate

The second paragraph claimed that univeristy debate used rps to determine who "goes first". At least for the debate known a policy debate, this is false. The team who is assigned "affirmative" always speaks first and who is affirmative is determined by a computer scheduling program since everyone must be ensured the same number of affirmative and negative round in the tournament (which wouldn't be guarenteed by rps). If this is referring to some other sort of debate, feel free to add it back in with a reference to which type of debate uses it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tv-screenshot to illustrate a pop culture example?

Template:Tv-screenshot looks like no.

I have a close screenshot of the hands and a shot of the people in rps position from my Stargate Atlantis example which I could thumbnail for the pop culture section. But it looks like it wouldn't qualify as fair use for this article. Does anyone have a good reason why I should add it? --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Wikibofh. It might be valid for the article about that episode once I or someone writes a good-sized summary. I'd like to include it here too, but unless someone can give me a license-relevant reason, I won't. I suppose I could italicise a note (includes picture) with the Siege Part I link, but it wouldn't be the same, for good and ill. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's some possibly interesting thoughts here about playing RPS with 3 players. But even if something interesting gets written on it, Tv-screenshots cannot be used except to illustrate the program in question, correct? --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gambit

This article does not mention gambits, which are series of three throws that players use to prevent getting predictable. The player picks all three throws up front, so they won't try to and modify their second and third throws based on the opponent's first throw, thus getting themselves caught in a trap. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Savidan's got you covered. I'll create Category:Rock, Paper, Scissors to organize the articles. Melchoir 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Subliminal Strategies

I cant verify this other than anecdotally, but Ive found that the best strategy is to throw whatever would beat that which would beat what you won with previously. For example, say I win with rock to my opponent's scissors. Subliminally, they're going to want to throw paper next, because it beats the rock I used last play. Knowing this, I throw scissors.

I think the easier way to think about this is to throw the throw that just lost. (Since it's a modular game, going two steps forwards--"throw whatever would beat that which would beat what you won with previously"--is the same as one back. So: "For example, say I win with rock to my opponent's scissors." Then, since scissors just lost, "I throw scissors." Tie? Make up your own rule. Of course, this only applies if you choose a response to each round. With gambits this is an irrelevant strategy. Gidklio 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Futurama

Futurama had an episode where Zap Brannigan arrested the delivery crew for having a large pair of scissors and he mentions something about the game. Perhaps somebody can watch it to see what was said and add it.

Zapp: "Rock crushes scissors! But paper covers rock... and scissors cuts paper! Kif, we have a conundrum."
Kif: *sighs*
Zapp: "Search them for paper... and bring me a rock."

164.55.254.106 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

in BiH

In Bosna i Hercegovina a similar game is played, but I can't remember what it's called. A guy from my neighbourhood explained it to me, but being a novice I couldn't sync to the timing, which is different from RPS. Also, the BiH one is with three people. Basically everyone holds out a hand and rhythmically alternates palm-up and palm-down positions, and on the fourth beat everyone picks which side their palm faces. The odd one out - for example, the palm-upper if the other two have their palms down - is the loser/winner.

Anyone with more of a clue than me might want to start something on it.

--Esseye 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Game Theory BS

Playing Ro Sham Bo perfectly randomly is not the ideal way to play according to Game Theory. Rather, it is simply an unexploitable strategy that gives you no advantage whatsoever. By playing perfectly randomly, you are eliminating any weakness in your own strategy, but also eliminating any weakness in your opponent's strategy. You are exercising an option to create a Nash Equilibrium at will. If you are playing perfectly randomly, then it doesn't matter what strategy your opponent uses -- you will simply have a 50% probability of winning each match. Optimally, you'd want to exploit a winning strategy against an opponent you know you can beat, and fall back on perfect randomness if you're up against a superior opponent.

-looks like u explained it just fine 24.107.2.65 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)WhargouL

Long lists

The lists of international variations and of pop culture references had become absolutely absurd in number. I understand the problems with maintaining a slim list in light of people's desire to add their favorite reference in. As a result, I have moved international variations to Rock, Paper, Scissors variations (which already existed) and I have created List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors and moved that list there. I have made brief remarks in each section, which could probably be improved. It is my intention, however, to keep these to a couple of paragraphs and not allow the sections to grow to their previous size. Sound cool to everyone? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious problem with this article

The "World RPS Society", where some of the information in this article comes from, is a comedy website. It's an extended sophisticated joke. The humor is subtle enough that apparently many people have taken it seriously, to the point where (assuming that there really was Fox Sports Net coverage of this), the joke is in some ways becoming real... but it's still a joke. As there's no way of knowing which (if any) part of the content of the world rps society website is accurate, it cannot be used as a wikipedia source. For now, I'll just add the Fiction tag to the article. --Xyzzyplugh 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section. As I take it this is the only fictional part of the article, I removed the fiction tag as well. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The problems go beyond that. The "world rps society" has been pushing their joke/hoax/ for years now, to such an extent that it becomes difficult to know whether any source on this subject is valid, since so many others take material directly from the world rps website without apparently realizing it's a joke. Note that "The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide", listed as a reference for this article, is also by this same group. Amazon.com's review for it uses the phrases "Beginning with a tongue-in-cheek history", and "faux-serious handbook". Note that the "USA Rock Paper Scissors league", website http://www.usarps.com/, is also a joke site by the same group who put out the "world rps society" website.
I really don't know how to fix this article at this point. The "world rps society" hoax has been successful to the point that they've managed to infect, if you will, every other source on the topic. Apparently, according to http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/fyi/2005/0407/061.html , there really are events being held called "rock paper scissors championships"; however, the author of the above article didn't appear to realize that they were "real" to the extent that professional wrestling is real. I'm gonna put the Not Verified tag on this article for now.--Xyzzyplugh 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article as a whole is too infected by USARPS nonsense to be useful. We can easily enough remove references to bogus competitions without affecting other details. For the record, I can only vouch for two real competitions in which I have participated: Darse Billing's programming contest, and the annual BARGE event in August in Vegas (which has featured other notable poker players like Ferguson and Hellmuth). --LDC 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I know little about this topic. If you could find a way to differentiate between fact and fiction on this topic, it would be appreciated. The majority of the article is completely unsourced. For example, is the gambits section fictional? How would we verify this? It looks to me like the gambits section comes from www.worldrps.com/gambits.html which may mean it's fiction. --Xyzzyplugh 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I can vouch for the existence of RPS competition associated with the World Series of Poker, I saw coverage of the event on ESPN. By that I mean actual coverage of the actual event, not just a mention of its existence. Also, the following source [1] is a book that contains information on gambits. Regardless of whether or not the WRPS was the initial cause of this information or not, it is now published and deserves coverage on our encyclopedia. I will remove the hoax tag from the gambits section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Kzollman, the source you link to is a chapter from The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide, which is part of the joke/hoax put out by the World RPS Society. The author's of this book are Douglas and Graham Walker, who according to http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/fyi/2005/0407/061.html are the same people who run the World RPS Society. See Amazon.com's page on this book, where publisher's weekly refers to the book as "faux-serious". This illustrates my point about the problem with this article. It's clearly difficult for anyone to tell fact from fiction at this point, as the hoax has permeated all aspects of coverage on this topic.--Xyzzyplugh 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the lesson from this whole fiasco is: never be funny. That makes enverything easier for everyone :) Well shit. I'm actually not sure what to do about this. X: do you have any nice long (real) sources about the WRPS that I could use to compose a good section about them? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. I've searched around, and it appears that no one has yet written a real article explaining the worldrps joke/hoax. If you want some personal evidence that the site is a hoax, the best way to see it is to look through their old pages from the Internet Archive. In the earlier years, the joke was more obvious. For example, see this page from 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20030207120658/www.worldrps.com/archive/index.html Unless you believe that the worldrps society was having diplomatic relations with the soviet union, involved in major WWII meetings between leaders of the Allies, etc, you have to see that this is fiction. --Xyzzyplugh 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, thank you very much for pointing this out. I hope that my haste in dealing with the situation doesn't make it appear that I'm not appreciative. I'm glad you took the time to point out what I take to be an emense embarasment. This is the reason for my haste. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As the author responsible for much of the WRPS Tournament results content I am very saddened to see the removal of the WRPS tournament section. I have no ability speak to the WRPS society organization or website - but I have been personally present at each WRPS International World Championships since 2003 (October of that year). The tournaments were conducted as indicated in the tournament sub-section of the article and have been covered by mass media too numerous to mention here; As a simple Google news search for "rock paper scissors world championships" will attest. The "videos" section of the WRPS.com website (yes I understand it's problematic to use the source under debate as a reference but bear with me) contains actual tournament video coverage by CNN, CBC, Fox Sports Net, and NSK Japan - especially the "media highlight reel". At the 2005 championships this fall 1024 competitors from around the world entered, playing for a top prize of $10,000 Canadian. I have personally met 3 of the previous World champions: Peter Lovering, Rob Kruger, and Andrew Bergel - none of whom had anything to do with the WRPS organization, they were competitors the same as I. I also have spoken firsthand with many players who have played at other WRPS tournaments throughout the year including tournaments in Washinton D.C., New York City, and the Roshambo Winery in Healdsburg, CA (their website at roshambowinery.com has a 2006 installment listed for this June). The size and scope of the photo gallery at wrps.com alone is defence (to my mind) against your argument that the tournaments are "hoaxes" due solely to the size and scope of the photos. To fake an archive of this size (costumes, set dressing, decoration, extras) would take hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While I understand that one of the underlying tennants of WRPS tournaments (adopting pro-wrestling style "personas" and flamboyant costumes) makes it an obvious candidate for scrutiny - these are absolutely real competitive events being conducted across North America by an existant organization which, draws score of international competitors and spectators, and has been amply documented by non-first-party media. I can't imagine what possible criteria this doesn't meet to merit inclusion here.

I recognize that I was absent from Wikipedia while much of the above discussion was happening, for which I apologize, but I would very much like to hear arguments why the tournament section should not be reinstated.TheBigSmoke 18:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief addendum,
Having reviewed Xyzzyplugh's edit comments one of the bones of contention to the tournament section seems to be the argument that the format used for WRPS events (the so-called "best of three of three") is not long enough to effectively determine pattern behaviour in one's opponents. While there is likely some truth to that (some percentage of relative beginners usually make it to the final 16 in any given year (which requires a minimum of 16 match victories out of a field of 1024) there are certainly players who consistantly make high-level results which would otherwise be a statistical anomaly. I am afraid I am going to have to rely on psedonym occasionaly as many are not players I'm personally acquainted with outside of the tournament personas but the Washington DC players "Master Roshambolla" and "Midnight Rider" have consistantly placed in the top quarter of the field each year. Montreal, Canada's Mark Rigeaux has made the final 8 two out of the past three years, and US competitor Andrew Bergel (who I incorrectly discribed above as a world champion, I was thinking of Lee Rammage) has made the final 4 in each of the last two years. For that matter Lee Rammage was the 2004 world champion and made the final 4 last year. While some statistical anomaly is likely, that number of consistant results is surprising if the game were pure chance (and I acknowledge the fact I only am personally aware of a small number of players at any given tournament - there may be better examples of sustained tournament results). Certainly in my post-game discussions with the individuals references above I never got the slightest impression that any had any involvement with the tournament organization (the so-called "World RPS Society") other than their competing in events ("Master Roshambolla" is the exception - he was a commentator for the 2003 Fox Sports Net television special, and has written on the WRPS website - so he may have some broader affiliation. That being said, he was certainly travelling to last years tournament out of his own pocket given our discussion on travel and accomodations).
As much as the WRPS forums can be home to bluster, hyperbole, and self-aggrandization there are also very detailed and informed articles on opponent profiling, game psychology, common pattern responses, reading "tells" (so-called "wrist adductions" which are indicative of upcoming throws) and meta-game strategy to try and make reliable repeatable gameplay decisions in a very short period of time. Yes, it is still absolutely possible for novices to defeat more advanced players on occassion, which is why I enjoy the events particularly, but the same can be said of almost any competitive sport to some degree. Perhaps the closest parallel would be the World Series of Poker - which has shown far more volatility in their final tables in the past three years than the RPS events I've participated in. TheBigSmoke 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WRPS Reinstated

I have allowed a week "cooling off" period since my previous post decrying the editing to the WRPS tournament section of this article and, having received no comments in that time, I have restored the WRPS tournament section. I don't believe there's anything in my restore that contradicts the original concerns - as no mention is made of anything other than verifyable competitive events the society has run. To try and mitigate some of Xyzzyplugh's concerns however, I have cited numerous major-media coverages of the tournaments in the article (including the Washington Times, CBS, NPR, Rolling Stone, CNN, Fox News), as well as linked the photo archives of the events. To add scope to WRPS activities I've also began a list of WRPS sanctioned tournaments with independant web presences. As I stronly believe it was not NPOV, I attempted to re-write the "WRPS Hoax" sub-heading in NPOV, however I found that impossible given the underlying tennent of that section (That an organization I know to run competitive sporting events is, without question, an elaborate hoax). I settled on re-writing this section as a "WRPS detractors" sub-heading. Although now NPOV I don't find it to be particularly strong writing, so I would appreciate it if Xyzzyplugh, kzollman, or anyone behind the original "Hoax" writings would either remove it (if they have been swayed by the additional citation and reference I've since posted) or, alternately, re-write that section to better represent their new position given the new material added. TheBigSmoke 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up and changes

At the moment, this article falls far short of the current stadards for featured articles. It is poorly formatted, does not contain much information, and has no references. This article needs a thorough clean-up, otherwise it will be listed as a candidate on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. The wording in the article is of poor quality, the lead paragraph needs to be expanded, but most of all, this article needs to have refences and citations!

Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PZFUN, and started the farc. The reality is that sources are not available for the majority of this article and no one is engaged in finding them or removing dubious content. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Chart

I suggest the chart at the top be removed. Its labels are wrong.--And Introducing... A Leg 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn -- Now correct.--And Introducing... A Leg 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Names in other languages

"also known in Japan as Janken" is in the intro right now. I don't think that this deserves such highlighted coverage. The foreign language names should be in a subsection of the alternate names which one day may even become long enough to warrant its own article. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As janken was invented in Japan, it should in fact be highlighted. Apfox (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious about the names' connection

I am curious about the origin of the names Ching Chong Cha (South Africa),Chin chan pu (Mexico)and Ca Chi Pun (Chile), they don't sound like local language, do they? In Hong Kong, the kids would say in unison, "Ching Chum mor gau Cha siu bao" when they time the release of their hands. Though the ending part of the saying has some meaning in Cantonese, the begining part is meaningless. I wonder if that part was derived from South African name?  :-) Kowloonese 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Names list removed !

It seems that the lists of alternative names and variations of the game, and cultural references to it, were moved to separate pages that were then deleted ! See #Long_lists above. I would think that it is notable that the game is pretty universal in so many cultures, and has little documented history. It is even notable that many of the names have no known origins, but are just presumed by everyone to be 'foreign'. It would be interesting if eg the English thought the name was French, the French thought the name was Japanese and the Japanese thought the name was English !

The following reference is partially quoted in a Frisbee context
Opie, Iona & Opie, Peter (1969): Children's Games in Street and Playground Oxford University Press, London.
It lists five different names used in parts of one city - London !

I would suggest that retrieving the list of names from 'article history' would help people searching other names to find this page, and maybe avoid the creation of duplicate or regional pages for each variant eg Janken !
Maybe the Irish / Cartman version involving physical violence could be a separate page ? Although I vaguely remember 'Stinging' as described by the Opies' book in North Scotland in ~1970, when nothing else was at stake. Or does it rely on one person preparing for a simple finger game, but being violently and unexpectedly assaulted ? Maybe the WRPS stuff should be a separate page, especially since it seems to be partly humourous or at least controversial ? I think many sports and games will have organising bodies on a separate page, but am too lazy to look ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Supposed russian version

The article claimed 'In Russia there are 3 more additions to it: along with Rock, Paper, Scissors you also say Pencil, Fire, Water (Pencil beats Paper and is beaten by everything else; Fire beats Paper, Pencil and is beaten by everything else, Water beats Fire, Pencil, Scissors, Paper and is beaten by a Rock.)' This seems very unlikely, as Water would always be better than Pencil, Fire or Scissors, so I have removed this part. If anybody can confirm this variant does exist, please add it back in.

It's no other than children's fiction, and(but)no Russian ver. ))) Russian (камень-ножницы-бумага as Rock-scissors-paper)to play as well as English ver.83.167.98.19 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How can there not be a mention of "roshambo" in the article?

The absence of any mention of roshambo as an alternative name seems to me to be a significant ommission. I don't have time at the moment to edit the article to add it, but I'll try to do it later. Just wondering if such a reference has been rejected already. --Nick 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just an alternate spelling of Rochambeau? Kowloonese 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It does seem odd that references are made to certain Roshambo tournaments, but it is never actually mentioned that Roshambo is an alternative name to the game.Ordinary Person 08:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here here 198.175.55.6 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cut a bunch out of this article again

Much of this article is nonsense, as it stems from the World RPS Society and it's comedy book, "The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide". The World RPS Society mixes fact and fiction to such an extent that they and their writings are useless as a source. Read http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188380,00.html and note that the "World RPS Society" began in 1995, but claims to have been founded in 1842, for example. --Xyzzyplugh 12:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

World RPS Society history lesson

For those who might be interested: The "world rps society" began as a website in 1995, it was a joke, a parody of a competition website. It pretended to have been around for a century, spoke of international competitions and strategy and master players and such. None of it actually existed, and those who got the joke found it to be highly amusing. The less intelligent thought the joke was real. As time went on, the World RPS society website became more and more popular, and they decided to actually hold a competition. It was all done very tongue in cheek, the prize was small, and presumably everyone there was in on the joke.

The World RPS society put out a book, claiming to be "The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide". It was, again, obvious to anyone reading it that this was a joke. The competitions got bigger, and the World RPS Society, who had always made the joke subtle and never broke Kayfabe, managed to get some legitimate news organizations to cover their tournaments.

The whole thing has continued to snowball, and now what was once a joke is becoming real - there really ARE now tournaments with sizeable cash prizes, there's major media coverage, and people are treating the "strategy guide" as if it's a real strategy guide.

All of this makes writing an article on this topic difficult, since it is difficult to now tell fact from fiction. Major media organizations are writing articles presuming that the world rps society is legitimate. And, oddly enough, they are becoming legitimate, as much of what was once pretense is now real. But how to tell which is which? --Xyzzyplugh 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And for those who want a bit of verification of the above, try the following link: http://www.worldrps.com/yotr.html and ask yourself if a single word on that page is true. --Xyzzyplugh 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well since you seem so hellbent on removing the Gambits displayed on the worldrps page I'm going to have to quote you and ask you a question. "Major media organizations are writing articles presuming that the world rps society is legitimate. And, oddly enough, they are becoming legitimate, as much of what was once pretense is now real." So if they are slowly becoming real as many people now follow their strategies then shouldn't these strategies be listed on the page? I feel they definitely should be.
What evidence do we have that many people follow their strategies? A joke/fiction book, "The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide", is not evidence of this, nor are quotes from the authors of this book who are playing a role, much in the manner of professional wrestlers. And, I'll repeat my frustration with this topic: the whole thing becomes difficult to write about when so much of the source material fails to differentiate between fact and fiction. --Xyzzyplugh 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
From a CBS segment: “There's a lot of strategy, a lot of gambits being played. For example: three rocks in a row, that's the avalanche; three papers, that's the bureaucrat; a rock followed by two papers, a fistful of dollars; and that's really only scratching the surface.” If it's real enough for a major broadcasting company, I think you should seriously reconsider your stance and become more open-minded.
How about a rewrite in which a brief mention is given of the organization as a "semi-satirical" group, with a couple examples of what these gambits are, and then a link to a place that has the complete list? --tjstrf 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with a section describing the actual nature of the World RPS Society and the "official guide", and mentioning that gambits come from this guide. --Xyzzyplugh 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The CBS article listed above, and citation 12 from the article, are both quoting "master roshambolla", who is part of the "world rps society" and who mixes fact and fiction constantly. Citation 12, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041210-120729-4008r.htm , along with most other articles on this topic, hint at or straight out state that this is not to be taken seriously. The Washington times article from citation 12 quotes Douglas Walker, co creater of the World RPS Society, as saying "If this becomes 100 percent real and legitimate, is there any humor left?" Publisher's Weekly's comments on the "official rock paper scissors strategy guide" call it a "faux-serious handbook" and refer to the "tongue-in-cheek history" the book gives for the game. --Xyzzyplugh 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
And, regarding the specific Gambits section which keeps getting re-inserted into the article, its simply a terrible section regardless of whether one accepts the existence of gambits or not. It makes claims like "A serious combatant may practice a gambit thousands of times until the mind has only to name the series of throws and muscle memory takes care of the rest. Much as a great martial artist or dancer will practice the same techniques until their conscious "higher" minds are not needed, and rather it is the "lower" unconscious mind which takes control". This is totally unsourced, and the brief mention of gambits in news articles certainly does not justify this. And the "Professional RPS" section is goofy nonsense. It starts with the self-evident statement that a player winning the first throw out of three will have a huge chance of winning the 2 out of 3 throws (no kidding!), and then goes into great detail pretending this is somehow significant. Even if we found reliable sourced evidence that gambits were being used and taken seriously, the disputed Gambits section still would not be remotely appropriate. --Xyzzyplugh 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Xyzzyplugh. I'm the user who commented on your original "hoax" subsection and tournament info deletion. I actually am in agreement with you on the language and tensing of the contentious gambit section. Or at least I agree with tjstrf in that I think better citation, clearer writing, and less philsophy would be a pre-requisite to inclusion. However, I disagree that the material is "difficult to write about" at all. There are clearly citable and defensible facts (What tournaments happened, who won them, what third-party press wrote about it, how many people competed in them, and players and strategies given more than one (reliable third-party) source). If they are not, they shouldn't be included herein. Period. But by the exact same token however, material shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either because of past events not referenced in the article or relating to the article. For example, no matter the origin of the WRPS, it's a fact that Douglas and Graham Walker wrote a book called "The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide "[[2]]. I happen to own a copy. While I absolutely agree there's no doubt that it can be light hearted in tone, I certainly wouldn't call it a joke/fiction book. Taking "Gambits" as an example, pre-scripting throws to increase randomness is certainly a strategy (if not an optimal one). While the "strategies" themselves get somewhat abstract from playing optimal Rock Paper Scissors, the same is no less true of other sports where community consensus on "form" is more important than acheiving objectives (Professional Figure Skating, Kendo, and Western Fencing diciplines come to mind). As anonymous points out above, if enough people adopt a position as cannonical and it is not provably a lie, that at least needs to be mentioned.
I think this is exactly the process that has started on this article in the past months. I disagreed with your assumptions about the WRPS and USARPS touranments given first person experience - but our discussion led (directly or indirectly) to increased citation, and cleaner writing of those sections. As long as proponents on both sides can present indisputable facts to use as article base points, some semblance of NPOV will almost certainly result. TheBigSmoke 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What source material do we have on gambits which is reliable? I would be fine with having a section here on gambits as long as it doesn't mix fact with fiction. While I don't have the RPS strategy guide book, I do have access to the sections on the website, including the internet archive's pages. Here, for example, is one of the earliest copies I could find regarding gambits: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203083628/www.worldrps.com/gambit.html This is from 1998, from before the World RPS Society had begun holding tournaments I believe. To what extent does it match the text in the book? Note that it makes claims like "This move took the 1967 RPS World Championships by surprise" and "Was the first of the Triple Gambits developed in the early 1890s", both completely fictional claims. --Xyzzyplugh 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading your comment about Master Roshambolla I read that Washington Post link. I'm not sure exactly where you are claiming that he's mixing fact and fiction. In fact, everyone they talk to in that article seems pretty straightforward about what's going on. What's the beef, then? Just wondering. -JMS

Regarding good article nomination

This article fails the following criteria for being a good article (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?):

  • (criterion 2a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material. - rampant {{fact}} tags and two {{not verified}} templates. Even with these in place, I noticed a very large amount of statements in need of citation which were not indicated as such.
  • (criterion 2d) it contains no elements of original research. - the majority of the article is original research. It should not be difficult to find some kind of reliable source from which to take the necessary information from, so this could probably be taken care of fairly easily. However, the problem is currently extreme (particularly in the Cheating and Variations sections), and as such I cannot pass the article.

If you don't mind me doing so, I will aid you guys in the detection of all the original research and claims in need of verification with {{fact}} and {{or}} tags a little later.

Once the issues listed above are resolved, the article may be renominated for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. JimmyBlackwing 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionable fairness of tournament play

(This is not a comment about the article, but about the way RPS tournament play is conducted.) I confess to being quite surprised to learn that the pairwise game at tournaments is played just as it is in the street -- with both players in full view of each other, revealing their choice of R, P, or S via a physical "throw" of the hand. This allows for winning to be determined by simply having the fastest reflexes for determining one's play at the very last possible moment, after visually detecting the opponent's play a tiny fraction of a second after opponent has begun to irrevocably reveal it physically.

This does not seem to me to be how the game is intended to be played or won, yet it seems impossible to prevent players from using this method if tournament play continues to be conducted in the way it has been.Daqu 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is off-topic and has nothing to do with the article so I'm not sure why it's here. Secondly, has it never occurred to you that reflexive throwing might be part of the strategy and skill involved in winning RPS? It may very well be an intentional allowance. --tjstrf talk 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it does have to do with the article. What is the goal of the game, after all? Is the goal to out-strategize your opponent, or to win by anticipating their throw by a split-second and then adjusting one's own throw to beat that?
If the article does not make clear what the true goal of play is, then it seems to me it would benefit by including that information. I do not know enough to answer this, so I'm only bringing up the question.
Do there exist tournaments where neither player has any information about the opponent's throw until after both have thrown?
Is using the watch-and-adjust-at-the-last-second a legal way to win, according to the rules of the game? Is this strategy commonly used in tournaments?
Inquiring minds want to knowDaqu 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be fair to suggest that the only strategy is to try to cheat without being found out ? It seems that many 'chemically-assisted sports' work the same way! That would put it in the category List of games with concealed rules - see also Gamesmanship. The 'hands behind the back' approach would make it fair but therefore remove all opportunity for 'strategy' ! Or am I just cynical ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it might be possible for some people to read some other peoples' faces (mind-reading, cold reading) and predict their choice better than by chance ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

History

Hello. I came to this page to specifically learn the history of this game, and LO- there is nothing. Hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.81 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Never before have I seen such liberties taken in a discussion of the history of RPS. RPS began during the Stone Age before the appearance of paper and metal. Thus, paper and scissors were Flat Rock (think stone tablets) and Sharp Rock. Because of these distinctions, Rock couldn't simply be "Rock" in this early game; it was instead General Purpose Non-Specific Rock. To complicate matters further, hand signals had not yet been introduced to the game, and actual rocks were used. The material similarities of all the throws caused problems until the appearance of bronze and papyrus. Flat Rock was successful at smashing both Sharp Rock and General Purpose Non-Specific Rock, due to its ease of wielding. However, a particularly large General Purpose Non-Specific Rock could not only smash both Sharp Rock and Flat Rock, it could actually turn Flat Rock into an array of smaller Flat Rocks, General Purpose Non-Specific Rocks, and Sharp Rocks, giving the loser of a particular throw an incredible edge in the disputes that undoubtedly followed. Depending on the size of General Purpose Non-Specific Rocks used, there was rarely a true tie between two General Purpose Non-Specific Rock throws, as one would almost always be larger than the other, producing the same results as smashing Flat Rock. When paper and metal made their respective appearances in later ages, the game quickly came to resemble today's versions, with little changes being made since. In fact, the substantial modification of General Purpose Non-Specific Rock, Flat Rock, Sharp Rock is thought by a few schools of thought to constitute a new game entirely. Fateddy 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rock, Paper, Scissors" was invented in Kyushu in Japan. This is common sense of Japan. It is common sense of Kyushu. In this, there is a lot of clear evidences. Please look at a Japanese version. Please stop the history being fabricated.

The game of Greece and Rome is irrelevant to the "Rock, Paper, Scissors". It is necessary to make another item about the same kind of game. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.157.18.169 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2006

Then find citations. Verifiability, the lovely policy that solves all of these problems. If there are 2 sourced versions of the history, well, then that will get interesting. Also, you were probably unaware of this, but we have a law against making more than 3 reverts of the same material to the same article in the same day. See the three revert rule. So I'll let you off with a warning, but if you revert your version in again, we'll have grounds for a 24 hour long block. --tjstrf 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Was the thing to which "Original History section" was wrong able to be understood?Please be and do Fdet the doubt point still. --202.147.217.249 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

History（Translation from Japanese version）

"Rock, Paper, Scissors" is called "jan ken" in Japan. "Rock, Paper, Scissors" being done now became modern (the 19th end of century)and was born. It is thought that it was designed from ”ken Play” that still remains a lot in West Japan.(It is thought that the element of “Three cowering ken” that exists in Japan from of old joins of "The number of ken" transmitted at the 17th end of the century.) It has caught on worldwide rapidly along with the overseas expansion, the judo, the cartoon, and the animated cartoon of Japan. Play that is called "hon ken" "Nagasaki ken" "suu ken"etc(parlor play) is transmitted from China through Nagasaki at the 17th end of the century and it plays in the feast. After that, the invention of the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" becomes because "ken play" became active in the middle of the 19th century. "Rock, Paper, Scissors" invention is thought this age because the book that researched the “ken play” of the child in Japan in the middle of the Meiji（1868～1912） era is published.

1, 3, and 4 of “the numerical ken” were omitted in “jan ken”. Comprehensible 0, 5, and 2 in the middle are remains. The meaning was newly assumed to be "Stone", "Scissors", and "Paper" and Three cowering was completed.

http://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E3%81%98%E3%82%83%E3%82%93%E3%81%91%E3%82%93

Introduction of "ken play"（Translation from Japanese version)

"ken play" is a thing of play to fight over the match by two people by opening and shutting of the hand or bending and stretching the finger. They are three people or more, and play that basically decides victory or defeat according to shape though not only the hand but also the one to use the entire body appeared at posterity.Our some of that came to be done also between children though it was play done in the feast. There are a lot of "ken play" around east Asia such as Japan and China.

the numerical ken(kuma ken)

"kuma ken" is a kind of "ken play".It plays around Kumamoto Prefecture Hitoyoshi City. It puts it out at the same time making shape from 0 to 5 from one handIt and struggles mastery. It is told that it started at the Edo period attendance by turns at the shougun's court.

Though it is thought that it became the origin of the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" because three in six kinds of bills are the same as "Rock, Paper, Scissors".The victory or defeat of "Kuma ken" is opposite as "Stone" wins "Paper".

http://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E7%90%83%E7%A3%A8%E6%8B%B3

"ken play" was divided roughly and there were "The number of ken(suu ken)" and "Three cowering ken(sansukumi ken)".

http://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E6%8B%B3%E9%81%8A%E3%81%B3

"Rock, Paper, Scissors" is originally one of the "ken play" of Japan.

It is not a great antiquity that the Japanese made Jean Ken known to the world.

Many of Japanese elderly persons remember Jean Ken being taught to the European now.

The European did not know "Jan Ken" in the record that remained in Japan until beginning about the 20th century. Then, the Japanese taught the European "Jan Ken". "Jan Ken" came to be called "Rock, Paper, Scissors" in the sphere in English. Because "Rock, Paper, Scissors" had extended too rapidly in Europe, people mistook they to were since the great antiquity.


Removal of paragraph

I've removed the paragraph about the use of the game to resolve childrens' trivial disputes. I don't think it belongs here as its not easily verifyable; it certainly doesn't belong in the lead section. Graham87 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Wait? isn't that the whole point of Rock, Paper. Scissors? I'll verify it, as I'm sure every single person I know would too. Anyone else? 68.72.129.214 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with user 68.72.129.214 that Graham87 is doing the opposite. I have never seen children play Rock Paper Scissors as a game, they use it as a method to resolve disputes. They use it as a tool like flipping a coin or rolling a dice to decide who get the next move in other games. But as a game on its own? That is really inventive. Please give some examples. If you ask me or my children, we would keep the paragraph about dispute resolution and remove the whole thing about it as a game. Kowloonese 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - as a child, my friends and I would use it to resolve disputes as well as choosing some action purely at random. We didn't use it as a game all that much.69.152.70.227 (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose removal of Cheating paragraph

It is certainly unprofessional, not noteworthy, unverifiable, and has been a magnet for low quality edits. Is there anything to be gained from leaving it in? See "Regarding good article nomination section" by jimmyblackwing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.150.105 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I removed it as unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with the part of article called "Mathematics"

1) The first paragraph under Mathematics (titled Non-Transitivity) discusses a relation without ever defining that relation. This must be fixed for anyone to learn something from this paragraph.

2) The second paragraph (titled Commutativity and non-associativity) says,

"Rock, Paper, Scissors also provides an example of a magma that is commutative but not associative, by defining a binary operation on the set {rock, paper, scissors} in which the product of a pair is defined to be the "winner."

The author intended for XxY to be whichever of X and Y is the winning throw and not, of course, the winning person. It would be good to say this explicitly, even though it can be inferred from the definition of a binary operation.

BUT for a binary operation -- as in a magma, each input (an ordered pair of elements) must have an output. Yet, RxR, SxS, and PxP don't correspond to any winner at all. So with all the mathematical pseudosophistication (not even many mathematicians know what a magma is), the example is seriously flawed. This, too, must be fixed if anyone is to learn anything from this paragraph.

Finally, if and when the binary operation problem is fixed, it would be helpful to not merely claim that associativity fails, but to include at least one example of this.Daqu 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling out the magmas bit. Besides the above, see Talk:Example_of_a_commutative_non-associative_magma where it's made clear the example isn't really about rock-paper-scissors. Cretog8 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

FA approximate date

I looked hard for when this article was made WP:FA (or Wikipedia:Brilliant prose), and couldn't find it, however it does show up in the "October 2003 and before" log, and there is a major edit on October 11, 2003, adding game history from the Atlantic Monthly, so I used that date to added that event to the ArticleHistory template. It's useful showing evolution of the article, and our standards, over time. GRuban 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Beaver variant

I have a good idea for a variant: use what's called the beaver. Beaver will beat rock (beavers sit on rocks) and paper (and beavers eat trees, which are used to make paper). 218.101.117.148 12:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Rooney Doodle tried it, and it worked.

Auction house RPS match

No references, and I question what Mr. Hashiyama said to the houses to settle the stalemate. Did he really say RPS or Janken, which was subsequently translated as RPS??--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4521589.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.32.14 (talk)

So we have that source, and I added the New York Times article as a source. As for the RPS vs. Janken question, there seem to be a handful of blogs commenting on the story that refer to Mr. Hashimaya calling for a game of Janken, but I cannot find a reliable source that doesn't just call it RPS. Unless there's a reliable source, unfortunately, the JAnken issue strikes me as OR. I'm gonna go ahead and remove the {{disputed}} tag. -Seidenstud 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rochambeau" French?

I really doubt that the French call this game "Rochambeau". The name isn't mentioned at the French Wikipedia, and a Google search of French pages for "Rochambeau ciseaux papier" and for "Rochambeau ciseaux feuille" gets only two three relevant hits, one of which is by a Candian with an Anglo name and the other of which is a keyword in a long list of keywords for a photo, so it may be there for the benefit of English-speaking searchers and the other other of which is a Swiss site that uses "roshambo (Rochambeau)" in a list of names for the game. Unless someone has a cite, I suggest deleting that claim and saying that English "Roshambo" or "Rochambeau" is of unknown origin.

By the way, is "Roshambo" only American? —JerryFriedman 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Boobs Brains Brawn", Tripple-B, or B-Cubed

A new hand game by Emil DeVries [3] for two players ala Rock Paper Sissors [4]

Game Play:
The players start by covering their eyes with their hands (palms flat) and then chant "Boobs! Brains! Brawn!" or 3,2,1.
On the third count the players present themselves in one of three poses:

  • Boobs: Arms down, hands cupped in front of breasts.
  • Brains: Arms in front, elbows bent back, an index finger on each temple.
  • Brawn: Arms out to sides, elbows bent up, and hands fisted, flexing biceps.

The idea is to select a pose that will defeat the other player. Poses are resolved as follows:

  • Boobs seduce brains, Boobs win.
  • Brains baffle brawn, Brains win.
  • Brawn arouses boobs, Brawn win.

In the case of a tie, try again.

A short victory dance based on the winning pose is then preformed by the winner.
--EmilDV 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Variations" section

There was a section called "variations" which contained only the unsourced statement that American children living in Japan called RPS "John Can Point" and said "I go to shore" after a tie. These gave not a single Google hit besides this page. I have been living in Japan for a number of years, and have noted that usually foreign children learn Japanese quite readily, despite how hard their parents sometimes try to prevent this from happening.

This section seemed to be nothing more than one person's speculation, or at the very most, a generalization based on observing his child. So, I've removed it.

--awh (Talk) 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cheung / Bob Cooper - World Champion 2006

There has been a handful of reversions back and forth between Michael Cheung (China) and Bob Cooper (UK) for the gold medal at the 2006 WRPS World Championships. A very quick Google determines no results for Michael Cheung and Rock Paper Scissors (or Janken) while Bob Cooper reveals a number of credible results indicating he won the tournament, including the BBCthe Official Tournament Site, and YouTube video of a player named Bob Cooper winning the tournament... so, hopefully we can consider this one put to rest? TheBigSmoke 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing paragraph

The paragraph headed "Controversy" has been removed. The notion that an argument about what it means for a piece of paper to beat a rock constitutes a controversy seems inane, and diminishes the article. I think it's important to remove such things to prevent opening Wikipedia to ridicule. It is by no means obvious that such an argument even exists in any widespread form; rather, one gets the impression that the paragraph has been added by someone in the almost unique position of themselves finding the matter worthy of debate. Further, an argument about whether "covering a rock beats it" is merely semantic, and while the question of whether "a rock would tear paper" has marginally more substance, it does not really bear on the game, which is one constructed to have cyclic preferences between choices; so the discussion is really of how well rocks, papers and scissors fulfil this role, rather than on how the outcomes of the game should be scored.

Cmsg 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, the paragraph offered no sources to allow us to verify that there is really a controversy over this. It's obvious how one could use scissors to destroy paper and how one could use a rock to destroy scissors, and while there is no similar relationship from paper to rock, I also think there is no one who cares enough to make it controversial. -- Lilwik 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Restore Variations Section

The section on Variations should be restored in some form. The existence and mathematics of 5-way and n-way versions is interesting mathematically and culturally. The official rules of the Ultimate Players Association (the Ultimate Frisbee governing body) prescribe the RPS variant that includes Fire and Water as trumps. Older versions of this page described the inclusion of Dynamite as a weakly dominated strategy, an important example in Game Theory. A section enumerating variations does court the danger of an onslaught of pet reformulations. However, all of the variants I added are Notable and Interesting, and their omission subtracts from the value of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have added references to fire, pencil, and gun as variations. As a child, my friends and I have added at least the pencil or the gun in addition to dynamite on occasion, as we all generally agreed on which beats which. We didn't care back then whether the result was mathematically fair. A web search found at least a few references to all three additions.69.152.70.227 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Roshambo

I have never heard Roshambo used to refer to Rock, Paper, Scissors. Roshambo is a distinct (and humorous) term for the resolution of a dispute between two male parties by exchanging kicks to the testicles. How can we address this? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By adding a source for Roshambo as an alternative name for the game, which I've now done. (I believe the other game is just a South Park joke.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

anime

This article could make reference to the anime Kaiji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.67.82 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Leushenko (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Analogies in nature and computing

I dont really think the analogies in nature and computing are relevant at all to this article. The mathematical function used in the game is what repeats in the mentioned elements, not the game... I dont think people find it useless at all, but pretentious and pompous --Maldanito (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger from Jan-ken-pon

Unresolved
 – This merge proposal has remained open for over a year, and opposition so far has not cited any policy/guideline reasons to not merge the articles, in the manner proposed.
The Janken article referred to below is now Jan-ken-pon.

I've proposed a merger from Janken, which just seems to be the Japanese version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. There do seem to be a few differences in variations, terminology, etc, but the basics are the same. It also describes many of the same rules, but adapted with pictures and Japanese teminology, all of which can be deleted or integrated into this article, if even that is necessary. Any objections, suggestions, comments, etc? -Platypus Man | Talk 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No such article, and creating one is not justified per WP:SUMMARY, since even a merged article will not be long and complex enough to require its forking into subarticles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not relevant per WP:NC. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, just sections in this one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely merge Jan-ken-pon (which is where Janken now redirects) into Rock-paper-scissors; they are about the very same game. The fact that it originated in Japan is of no consequence at all; per the naming conventions, English Wikipedia uses English-language article titles where possible. Cf. Yotsudama, which redirects to Four-ball, for a very parallel example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely do NOT merge - I think that the the Japanese Janken evolved quite differently in other parts, so a page for the original is best. Although a summary and a "see also" section here in Rock paper scissors article isn't a bad idea. Nesnad (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely merge; there's nothing intrinsically special about Janken, except that it's Rock-paper-scissors played by Japanese people. Dagbrown (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge Merge!! - I am sick of seeing separate Japanese-named articles for things. Things are not unique just because they are Japan-themed... --awh (Talk) 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment: awh, and dogbrown, you seem to be having some sort of anti-Japan bias? "sick of Japanese-named articles"? That sounds quite POV to me. So will you remove SUSHI, KARAOKE, and what not? Why does everything have to be on one page? Summerize Janken on this "rock, scissors, paper" page and let janken stand as it's own as it is currently. Why is that such a problem? I don't get it. Nesnad (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Rock-paper-scissors exists identically in Japan as elsewhere in the world. A phenomenon existing in Japan with its own name certainly doesn't justify having a separate page for the Japanese version of the phenomenon. It would be akin to having a page called "Enpitsu" talking about pencils in Japan. Also, in response to the ad-hominem, if I had an anti-Japan bias, I wouldn't be living in Japan. Dagbrown (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Nesand, I think that I probably did not explain myself properly. I certainly don't have an Anti-Japan bias, but after having lived here for years, I am a bit sick of the "Japan is a beautiful and unique snowflake, and everything that we do here is totally distinct from everywhere else in the world" attitude. Part of that is Japanophiles making separate, Japanese-titled articles about things that exist both inside and outside of Japan. Janken is the same as Rock-Paper-Scissors; it just has different terminology. --awh (Talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for the clarification on your opinions guys. Although the idea that janken is the "same thing but just with a different name" is what is annoying me, if this is merged I think attention should be spent on what makes it unique (such as rule variations and terminology, and even the different way that Japanese tend to hold their hands versus the typical RPS way, and what not), it's more than just a name (unlike making a page like "enpitsu" which would have no value since it basically 100% the same, just a Japanese word for pencil) as long as carefully merged with redirects I wouldn't be so upset about it.. Although!! Dagbrown, not to be too prickly, but I'm sure you know many Japanese people and/or people living in Japan who have an anti-Japan bias. I met one tonight, in fact. Race/living location has nothing to do with a bias that we harbor. Please don't assume otherwise, know what I mean? Cheers. Nesnad (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cadence Variations

Not enough is said about the most commonly disputed issue in the history of the game: When to throw. Is it "Paper, Rock, Scissors, SHOOT," which assumes the competition begins on a 4-count? Or is it "Paper, Rock, SCISSORS," where combatants display their gesture on a 3-count, simultaneous with the last spoken variant? This deserves its own section.

Tacoelf7 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Names in other languages

I know it's been discussed above, but wikipedia is not a dictionnary. I have therefore removed the following from the "Terminology" section (here with linebreaks inserted for clarity):

Localised names for the game include
the Japanese janken or jankenpon;
the Korean gawi bawi bo (가위 바위 보);
the Filipino jack-en-poy or bato-bato-pick (rock-rock-choose!);
the Brazilian jó-kên-pô;
the Hungarian kő-papír-olló;
the Chilean ca-chi-pún;
the South African ching-chong-cha (the words used in the count);
the Cantonese Chinese 包 剪 揼 – cover-cut-hit;
the Mandarin Chinese shi tou, jian dao, bu (剪刀 石頭 布 – scissors-rock-fabric);
the Italian morra Cinese;
the Bosnian kamen papir makaze;
the Croatian kamen škare papir
and the Swedish "Sten Sax Påse".

Here's my edit summary: Not a dictionnary; I remove translations. Only names of special interest e.g. because they do not follow general pattern should be added, with literal translations.

If a specific name/language is to be included, (1) a direct translation should be given (or it should be stated that it means nothing other than this game), and (2) the article should include some info to make it clear why this particular name/language deserves inclusion.

Perhaps the Japanese, Filipino and South African entries have enough info already.--Noe (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this be added?

I recently came across this site which has some very interesting variants of RPS. I was wondering if it should be added to the "Variants" section of this article as it is a very interesting read. Please check it out and advise whether or not it should be added. Perhaps even just in the "External Links" section of this article, but I really think it should be added. --RACiEP (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

this link insteadCretog8 (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It's already linked. See the "Variants" section, notes 3 and 4. Cretog8 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was proposing a greater mentioning. I don't know. --RACiEP (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I modified the reference slightly, so there's one ref linking to the front page rather than two links directly to RPS-25 and RPS-101. I think that page is interesting, so it's good to have it in the article. For me, a reference like that is good enough. Maybe others think it deserves more? Cretog8 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's impossibility theorem

This is much too tangential. I don't see that it belongs in an RPS article.Cretog8 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about it here. I may well agree with you that Arrow's impossibility theorem's relation to RPS is just as good as the magmas stuff. Probably the magmas stuff should get removed, too. I didn't remove it because I don't know about it, while I do know about the impossibility theorem. Intransitivity matters for RPS, and matters for plenty of other stuff. But that doesn't mean the other stuff matters for RPS. Cretog8 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed it again. I'm still not sure about the magmas, so I haven't removed that yet. I did post a query on the talk page, because the RPS example for magmas looks wrong to me. Cretog8 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing

This page has a link to another wiki page which shows the source of the information. I don't see a problem with the information. Carlos Johnson (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How in the world...

How in the world can paper beat rock?! For a rock to beat scissors it has to be like a 3000 pound boulder. If it was, that rock would rip right throught that paper.  — Invisible Robot Fish! 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously never tried to cut a rock.

I would like to second that question. Well not really, but expound upon it. If you cover a rock in some paper, that doesnt make it any less a rock. Just like scissors cutting paper, it is still paper, just smaller. And like someone said above, you'd need a really big rock to break scissors (unless they're those crappy plastic ones kindergarteners use). So in rock, paper, scissors, in the real sense, there would be no actual winner. But then again, nobody would play rock, paper, scissors with real rocks, papers and scissors. While it might remove the element of surprise, it might me a bit more fun... Arc88 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ON THE INVINCIBILITY OF PAPER: (it is still paper, just smaller)Take into consideration that the elements "fighting" would have a certain funcion (you want to draw something on that paper, you want to cut something with that scissor, etc). In this case, cutting the paper would make the paper lose its function by encountering the scissor, therefore being a reason for loosing. Scissors would still be able to cut if broken, but not in its original way, like the paper would be paper but not as it is needed. However, once again the invincibility of the rock comes our way as rock would not face the impediment of carrying on a function by being covered by paper. So, after all, how is it that rock is beaten? Remains a mystery to this day... --Maldanito (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[The following is moved here from a section further down this talk page:]--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No way paper beats rock

Somewhere in the pop culture section should be mentioned that this seeming paradox has been exploited by Seinfeld and others. Logically, unless the paper is extraordinarily resilient, it could in no way defend against a rock. Rock beats scissors by smashing into them and breaking them; a piece of paper is just as vulnerable to this type of attack. In fact, paper's offensive capability is severely limited, requiring a straw or rubber band to transfer it into a missile. On its own it is only capable of slightly slicing the fingers of the careless and unsuspecting. Its position in the company of such deadly weapons as scissors and rocks is extremely laughable.

Kramer used this logical deduction in a Seinfeld episode to convince his friend that rock was invulnerable, so their resulting matches were all draws (as both of them chose rock each time). This joke resonated with some people, causing it to enter pop culture in such forms as facebook groups and inside jokes.

I didn't edit the article directly because I thought this issue must have come up before and I didn't want to appear to be vandalizing.--70.108.14.72 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

-It doesn't matter, because water beats everything. Water dissolves paper. Water rusts scissors. Water erodes rock. --Crazycarolina 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For rock to beat paper the paper would need to be floating or not laying on any other thing. If you had a paper on the floor and youd leave it there, you wouldnt be ble to "beat it" with no rock really. In this case the rock wouldnt beat paper. Still, it could be argue that while it wouldnt be able to loose, paper would still be incapable of beating rock at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldanito (talk • contribs) 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Erh - it's just a game, folks.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard that "paper covers rock". Thus, paper can subsume any power that rock has. If you wrap a rock inside paper and throw it, it's paper that hits the target. The chameleon-like nature of paper, however, is undone by the edge of scissors. Thus, it seems more logical to me that paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper than your revisionist analysis. --Sam (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it boils down to "What is the rock for?" Paper can defeat any specific task assigned to the rock. Is the rock a weapon? A doorstop? A paperweight? Simply wrap the rock in paper, attach a small square (or several) of adhesive paper, write some words on it, and drop it in a mailbox. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The paper is mightier than the rock? --Johnny (Cuervo) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Javascript implementation

I spent about 10 minutes writing a Javascript/HTML implementation of RPS, and then adapted it to play against itself. Incidentally, it does tie more than it wins or loses. --Johnny (Cuervo) 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

History

I would be interested in seeing some history of this game. How long has it been played? Are there historical variants?--otherlleft (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct title for game and, therefore, page.

Hi all. Just got back into editing the Wiki through noticing this page. The official, and generally more accepted, name for the game is in fact "Rock Paper Scissors", rather than "Rock-paper-scissors". I'm rather a n00b, so if someone could please edit the page that all other variants redirect to, that would be great.

Cheers, Franklint 211.27.115.232 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

- Yep, agreed. Check out http://www.worldrps.com for the official site of the world society. I say move the page. 203.212.128.248 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-Very true. I think the page should be moved, as I've always heard it as Rock Paper Scissors, and if the official site says so...144.131.43.227 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm indifferent to what it's called. But I did want to point out that there's no "official" anything for rock paper scissors. It's overwhelmingly an informal game. Cretog8 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree w/ cretog8 Somethingshiny (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
A good point, Cretog8. However, as there is a lack of copyright over the game and its workings, the World RPS Society is fully allowed to claim some level of power and expertise over it. In any case, the vast majority of people who play RPS as a hobby agree that the "official" society should be counted as the most official of all similar authorities. As we've got two people agreeing and two people indifferent, I'm going to request a page move now. Franklint (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, for what it's worth. The opinion of people who play RPS as a "hobby" (who are surely quite a small minority of people who know of or talk about the game) shouldn't trump wider historical precedent or general common usage. --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Googling "rock paper scissors", active minorities may dominate the finds unduly, but it seems like the prevalent names are:
  1. Rock paper scissors
  2. Rock-paper-scissors
  3. Rock, paper, scissors
followed by, e.g., in random order:
  • Rock. Paper. Scissors
  • Rock! Paper! Scissors
  • Rock~paper~scissors
  • Rock, paper, scissors!
  • Paper, scissors, rock
I've not bothered to distinguish e.g "Rock paper scissors" from "Rock Paper Scissors" here.
Now, I do not think it is very important what name the article has, but I do think we should consider what is good English, too. I'm no native speaker, but I think I'd go for either "Rock paper scissors" (possibly "Rock Paper Scissors") or "Rock, paper, scissors".--Noe (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RPS varioation, name variation from Germany

As children in Germany (1960s), we sometimes added 'well' to the game (stone & scissors fall in well, paper covers well). The game was sometimes called 'schnick schnack schnuck' (schnickschnack denotes 'nonsense'). Can't offer any further verification of this.

yes I am german and we played it also this way sometimes. the German Wikipedia notes this variant, too. 79.193.120.15 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another variation: Giants, Wizards, Elves

There is another variation of RPS that I played once at camp. In this variation giants stomp elves. However, the giants are slow and thus easy targets for the spells of wizards. So the wizards beat the giants. The wizards are unable to enchant the elves because the elves' pointy ears can reflect the spells back at the wizards. Alternatively, the elves can shoot the wizards with their arrows. So elves beat wizards.[1]--Simonsa (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional Variations

I think that a section on regional variations is required. I was discussing the game with a French girl today who explained how a fourth choice "Well" (as in something you draw water from) is a common in France. I was looking here for more information, but the article seems very US-centric. The French article seems to have a very large list of regional variations across the world, but it is, you know, in French. Does anyone know a good source to find out what Rock Paper Scissors is like across the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.33.36 (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Expected number of rounds to determine a winner

I removed this section. While I'm pretty sure the 1.5 rounds result is correct, the math was wrong and seemed like OR, and... I'm not sure it's that important. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let p=1/3 be the probability of getting a winner in one round, and let E(N) be the expected number of rounds. Then, E(N) = p*1 + (1-p)*(1+E(N)), because with probability p, we get a decision in one round, and with probability 1-p, we need this round plus on average another E(N) rounds. Solving this equation for E(N), we find E(N)=1/p, i.e. in our case E(N)=3 rounds.--Noe (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That reasoning works, except the probability of a win in one round is 2/3, so E(N)=1/p = 3/2 = 1.5
Still, is it OR and is it important? CRETOG8(t/c) 19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The probability a winner in a round is 2/3; the probability of a player winning is 1/3 -- if only two are playing. I don't want to think about n playing. htom (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, my mistake, 1.5 is right. It's still mentioned somewhere in the article, though the calculation (that clearly was overkill) has been removed. As far as I am concerned, all is fine now.--Noe (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Guys, the probability of either player winning in a single game of RSB is 1/3. There are three possible outcomes for each player (win, lose, and tie) and each outcome is equally likely so the probability of winning a single round cannot be 2/3. So in fact the expected number of rounds to be played before a player records thier first win is 3 rounds (not 1.5 rounds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-dawg (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The question isn't the average number of rounds before Player X wins, it's the average number of rounds before EITHER player wins, which is theoretically 1.5. However, the entire calculation is dependent on the gestures being random - which they aren't- so I changed the wording accordingly--Ranatoro (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus Aervanath (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This move is particularly important to enthusiasts in the professional Rock Paper Scissors scene, who feel that the integrity of the sport is being compromised by Wikipedia, one of the most famous sources of information, having an incorrect name on the relevant article. Every official body agrees that the correct (or most correct, considering the informal nature of the game) name is Rock Paper Scissors (sources include http://worldrps.com, http://usarps.com, http://rpsaustralia.com, http://rpsnewzealand.com, http://rpsfilm.com, http://rpschamps.com, http://rpschamp.com). Please move the page.Franklint (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't understand how the integrity of the sport can be compromised by including hyphens in the name. Those links are not independent of the sport, the following independent sources call it:
Since there is no consensus from reliable independent sources as to what it should be called one way or another, and most links to this page come directly here, for the sake of not creating multiple redirects and double redirects the page should stay here.--kelapstick (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You raise interesting issues. To answer your initial question, Kelapstick, the integrity and validity of the sport is compromised if the name accepted by experts differs to that available on, as has been mentioned, such a popular website as Wikipedia. The RPS standing in the international stage suffers if no one has "bothered" to correct the Wikipedia article. While I will agree that, due to ignorance, various external sources use variations on the name, it is still blatantly obvious that these are wrong. It is unwise to ignore a vast number of seperate, albeit internal, sources, as these have much credibility and have the advantage of being monitored by people who, in a lot of cases, LIVE for their given discipline. Also, while it is true that there is no technical official body over something as informal as RPS, this lack of official boundaries also means that there is no mechanism in place to stop the World RPS Society from claiming jurisdiction over the area. The overwhelming support for this and other leagues by players the world over surely count for a great deal, and it is much more a commonsense issue rather than one focused on technicalities. "Rock Paper Scissors" is more correct than "Rock-paper-scissors", and I was of the belief that Wikipedia strove for accuracy. I shall take it upon myself to fix up the redirects if this move is accepted. While it may not mean much apart from proving a point to people against the move, it is very important to me and others that this is goes ahead.Franklint (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Rock paper scissors. If the integrity of the sport is being compromised by Wikipedia we need to take immediate action. Also, as the sources differ on the wording used, I think going with that used by the leagues seems reasonable. My personal prefernce is hyphens, but Kelapstick prefers commas, so at least this way he doesn't win out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. One of the reasons we quite explicitly don't slavishly follow official names in article naming is just to avoid the sort of argument I see above. It's all irrelevant I'm afraid! If the move is important to you, first step is a careful read of WP:NC#Lowercase and WP:CAPS to see whether Wikipedia policy and guidelines support it. Perhaps WP:SOAP would also be helpful, and MOS:TM might also be relevant, more to get the general feel of Wikipedia polity and tradition than for the letter of the law. (In my experience, the common name is paper, stone and scissors, but that probably reflects my own age more than anything else... In Australia it's most commonly played in Primary School, where it sweeps the country every few years, then suddenly becomes uncool again.) Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:NAME#Lowercase, in the absence of any indication that the name is "almost always capitalized". Could go either way on the hyphenation, though. --McGeddon (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above reason and no consensus from reliable sources whether hyphens used or not. JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for now Aside from the Wikipedia page, I see NO other source (via Google) that uses hyphens. The link above that says hyphens are used uses Rock Paper Scissors and does not use hyphens. Second, Rock Paper Scissors could be considered a proper noun (though I'm not a grammar expert), thus conforming with WP:CAPS.JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
over redirect: Don't capitalize game names (we play "football" not "Football", and the comma-laden version of the name is very difficult to use in prose w/o confusion.
I can understand the move based on capitalization and the removal of commas. I don't know why the hyphens were inserted though.I wouldn't have a problem with moving it to Rock paper scissors (no capitals) provided the nominator follows through with fixing the redirects and double redirects as he says he will.--kelapstick (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The hyphens have no basis. The capitalization issue is up for debate, and it hinges on is "Rock paper scissors" a common noun or proper noun, but the hyphens are incorrect. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The hyphens do have basis, such as the link to the Deseret News in Utah that I posted above, this link to The Times and Popular Science which are all reliable sources that use hyphens. My opinion is that paper and scissors shouldn't be capitalized since RPS is not a branded game like The Game of Life, but a game like British bulldogs (game).--kelapstick (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm blind. I didn't see the hyphens initially when I clicked that link and I was wondering why you posted it (I only saw the Rock Paper Scissors organization at the bottom). You make a couple of good points. JustGettingItRight (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is a tally from Google books of 412 books which include the game in the text. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • rock, paper, scissors 116
    • rock-paper-scissors 109
    • Rock, Paper, Scissors 105
    • Rock-Paper-Scissors 39
    • Rock Paper Scissors 17
    • rock/paper/scissors 11
    • rock paper scissors 9
    • Rock/Paper/Scissors 6
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal for change of picture

This picture could be modified to make it look much more symmetrical, while still describing the same game, in the manner that I propose under it's talk page. 85.224.19.225 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What does RPS have to do with Domestic terrorism??? Why is it linked at the bottom of the page? Assuming vandalism and reverting. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the game

Does anyone know where and when this game was invented? Seems it derives from that Japanese game that is linked in the article. But it could be nice to incorporate a "History"-section into this article too if possible. -GabaG (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree a history section would be nice, but there is no well-established history for the origins. Both the Japanese and Chinese claim it originated within their borders. It does seem to have started somewhere in Asia, at any rate. --Sam (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Substitution/different weapons

Under the "Variations" Section, what is the difference between the "Substitution of Weapons" and "Different Weapons" Sections. The substitution of weapons sections seems to describe a game that is only marginally different (different origin and smallest animal) from a game described in its entirety in the "Different Weapons" section. Should these two subsections not be merged? Aamackie (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Random grammatical corrections

Hey author, i hope you don't mind the liberty i took in correcting -- just found a few tiny spelling/grammatical errors -- nothing major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.71 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Assumed vandalism in "Additional throws" section

This was the second paragraph of the section. It strains credulity and no corroboration can be found online:

"In some cultures, an ultimate, invincible throw sometimes known as the "Huggies Supreme Diaper" exists in which no matter what the opponent throws they automatically lose. The throw consists of opening the arms and violently thrusting them together in a motion similar to the "Hulk Wave." This practice is not well known so the use of it on unsuspecting opponents guarantees victory for the thrower."

I mean, come on. My apologies if this is somehow correct, but I'm axing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blank Frank (talk • contribs) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvement

I may sometime soon be removing a lot of the unsourced material here - or finding sources, depending on whether I can verify it myself. If anyone wants to help, please add sources where the tags are located :) Luminifer (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fire/Water

In Ultimate Frisbee, which uses RPS (referred to as Roshambo) as an in-game and out of game means of dispute resolution, two additional throws are added--Fire, which defeats Rock, Paper, and Scissors, but can only be thrown once in an individual's lifetime, and Water, which defeats Fire, but loses to Rock, Paper, and Scissors and can be thrown any number of times.137.165.240.99 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed OR tag

I removed the OR tag (placed in September 2009) on the pokemon part. The pokemon guides itself say that its similar to rock paper scissors (one example is in the Prima guide for firered and leafgreen, where the section on pokemon types is called "rock, paper, scissors... and electric?") Solar flute (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge

FYI, I just merged from Jan-ken-pon... it's had that tag for over a year :) Luminifer (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but by creating a merge you have in fact created an article that is now Japanese centric. This game is played through out Asia (and the world) not just in Japan. For instance there is Muk-chi-ba in Korea and 石、剪子、布 in China etc.
The article states that the game was invented in Japan. Where is the evidence? By merging this article, it is by omission, inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.92 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for "Roshambo"

If this is going to be the redirect for "Roshambo," should it not have the reference to Cartman's "roshambo" from South Park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.130.230 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. I had to point to this article to prove that Roshambo does not mean Cartmans version. ref: Urban Dictionary -- User:Archeus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree. I am from Philadelphia, PA and know of rock, paper scissors. I always thought roshambo was a kick in the nuts game 132.56.180.7 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Jim

Mathematically solved

Shouldn't this article mention somewhere that an optimal winning strategy exists? It's proved by game theory that picking each option with probability 1/3 is optimal. Optimal here means that no other strategy can achieve more than 50% wins against this, and the only strategy that can achieve 50% is the same random strategy. 88.110.155.16 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While optimal in certain way theoretically, unless you're actually carrying around a random number generator, humans are not capable of being random. Psychology then means it is possible to have better than 50% wins against someone trying to do it entirely randomly. Plus, even in theory, it may not be the best strategy if your opponents are doing a different strategy - hence against irrational opponents you may have a better chance of winning (over a finite number of turns) by choosing a different strategy. Assuming you don't know whether your opponent is rational or not, then it may well be that the optimal strategy (particularly over low numbers of iterations) is something else. So...no, there is no actual optimal winning strategy in the real world. 163.1.146.89 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fire, Water, Wood

{irrelevant?} Another trio from nature is the relationship between Fire, Water, and Wood[citation needed]. Water puts out Fire, Wood floats on Water, and Fire burns Wood. It is possible to add in further elements, such as metal and air, as well.

An interesting analogy is to compare the three items to spiritual terms. If Fire represents Hell, Water represents Heaven, and Wood represents Earth, then we see that Heaven defeats Hell, Hell scorches Earth, and Wood rises to Heaven.

Further relations are notable, where burning wood is savable through the addition of water, fire only burns while more wood is added, and floating/wet wood is unaffected by fire.

What's "kuma ken"?

Paragraph 4.3 Strategy is about a game variant named "kuma ken", which is not explained at all beforehand. I can tell it's about playing numbers from 0 to 5 with one hand's fingers, but I think that needs to be explained clearly in some previous paragraph. 93.32.229.213 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

how does paper win

how the hell does paper beat rock how unrealistic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.115.165 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

There is tons of it in this article, but this was especially egregious:

Almost invariably, the game devolves when a player introduces a random trump weapon that beats all others. Either because the player becomes bored with the game, or decides that he should claim title as winner regardless of a fair outcome. In a scenario where two people are playing to determine who should ride in the front car seat, one might extend his thumb and index finger and claim the weapon "Shotgun! Now get in the car." When this happens, it's generally accepted that continuation of the game would be futile.

I highly doubt that the above can be properly sourced, but I moved it here just in case someone wants to make an attempt. Llakais 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin

Seriously, the game traces back to the 18th century Chinese novel Dream of the Red Chamber and maybe earlier. There is no way the Japanese reinvented it in the 19th century. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone asked, so I might add in some actual ancient writings of Chinese origins on this. In Chapter 63 of Dream of the Red Chamber, there is this sentence (rendered in Chinese script) 彼此有了三分酒，便猜拳贏唱小曲兒。 (After both/everyone had some alcohol, [they] started playing guessing fists [and the one who] wins [gets to be sung] a little song.) The guessing fist or 猜拳 is this particular game's name in China, and it traces back to the Han dynasty's 手勢令 which have a lot of variations. The Ming dynasty 六研齋筆記 by LI Yat-wa (李日華, 1565－1635) had 俗飲，以手指屈伸相搏，謂之豁拳，又名豁指頭。([who] wanted to drink, compete with fingers folded or extended, this is called opening fist, also known as opening fingers) and a similar game was also mentioned in Water Margin chapter 109. Some may argue this is not directly stating this game, but if we are talking about origin, these are the earliest mention of the game, and is nothing less than the mention of Jan-ken game in Japanese texts automatically associated with this game without further explanation. The game does date back to at least 18th century if not the 17th or even BC origins in the Han dynasty. This article seems to be written by a Japanophile (no offense, one can call me one too) with an overwhelming reference(not wikipedia ones) to Japanese terms, but the lack of firm sources in history research is kinda sad. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. this article is an unsourced mess. I'm cleaning up some, removing a lot of unsourced stuff that has been tagged for awhile.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The game could hardly have been invented, or even "reinvented", in Japan at the end of the 19th century considering that a club for the game (the Paper Scissors Stone Club) was founded in London, England in 1842, with the game apparently being well known in England even before that. (Source: World Rock Paper Scissors Club http://www.worldrps.com/about.html ). That club still exists, although relocated to Toronto, Canada in 1918, and is the organizer for the RPS World Championship. So the entire section on the origin of the game needs to be rewritten. Allan Akbar (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

World champion

The article states that both in 2008 as well as in 2009 Darren Elhindi from the UK won the RPS world championship. This strongly suggests RPS to be a game of skill, and therefore needs a proper reference and preferably also some context. (A quick google exercise I tried didn't result in anything useable.) JocK (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting, Wizzardhat. This makes more sense. JocK (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A Greek version?

In his 2002 novel Middlesex the author, Jeffrey Eugenides, has the narrator describe his Greek grandparents playing a game, in 1922, of rock-axe-snake, where "rock crushes snake", "axe breaks rock", and "snake swallows axe". This is a work of fiction. I wonder if there is an actual history of this version of the game? --AJim (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed DukeTIP variant

I removed the following unreferenced text; it seems just a bit too silly. -- Beland (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Rock-Paper-Scissors is one variation of Rock-Paper-Scissors that is commonly used in the Duke TiP community, which uses five throws: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Water, and Fire. The typical throws are the first three, however, every human is afforded only ONE fire throw in his lifetime. According to Peter Sloan of Duke TiP, an authority on such matters, after one's fire is used, "a little piece of your soul actually slips out and dies." Fire beats everything, except for water. Water, on the other hand, can be used as many times as one desires but loses to everything except fire.

Silly? no. this is the method that has decided many battles. yet only one time has someone's fire been put out. http://www.tipwiki.net/wiki/The_Mandate_of_Heaven This is the story of the one time that a fire has been watered. i ask you kindly to please revert your edit! thanks! Bikedog1 (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Red Bull World Online Series being readded

Due to the contest receiving a partal Recognizion by members of the World RPS and the Bullboard Forums, It os now being considered to be a Non Ranking/Unofficial Championship but seen as a forwarding motion in the Sporting side of the game. 88.104.1.162 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How is simultaneity enforced?

In an actual tournament, if one player's play is even slightly delayed, then there is the possibility of their seeing what the other player is about to play and making their decision of what to play on that basis.

This would obviously distort the intended basis for competition.

So I am curious: How is this possibility avoided in an actual tournament using traditional hand gestures to play? (Clearly if both players had to secretly choose their plays -- say by entering each play into a computer -- before the plays are revealed, this could be avoided. But in the article I see no reference to this kind of tournament.)

One more thing: Are there competitions between computer programmers, where one computer program plays another? That would be very interesting, and worth mentioning in the article, if so.Daqu (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is Being Unbalanced Such a Problem?

Since the throws are not random, but chosen by the players, a game with a move that is stronger than the others (dinamite blows stone and burns paper, and only loses to scissors)wouldn't be predictable. At first, dinamite could be popular, but then people would realize that actualy scissors is a better call (since it trumps the stronges move) then rock, by the same logic, and so on. The "unbalance" variants just don't sound so unbalanced after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.244.245 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Game theory

This page is listed under Game Theory, but there is no game-theoretic discussion of the game. I think it should be removed from the panel that shows up at the bottom of game theory articles, because I was looking up game theory and the article has wasted my time. How do I remove it from the panel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.165.251 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I hope the classification as a "top importance" game theory article is a joke, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.165.251 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a commentary on the game theory and/or "algorithms" to play this game and easily beat the current top algorithm: http://twitter.com/#!/QuakePhil/status/108920443414659072 72.245.213.213 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing 2010 World Champion

There was no World Championship hosted by the World RPS Society in 2010. I am removing the false "2010 World Champion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.86.50 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

ICQ RPS

How about adding a paragraph about ICQ's version for "Rock Paper Scissors", which looks like a chess board (except it's not 8 × 8), and there's two special players - Trap and Flag. Galzigler (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tournaments

The tournaments section has grown as big as the rest of the article. Does it really increase the reader's understanding of Rock-Paper-Scissors? Wikipedia isn't a news site... --Sam (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It has become a bit unweildy; perhaps it should be split off into it's own article ?--ProfPolySci45 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

History

The history section has no citations and has been tagged as possible original research for more than a year. I am removing it. 65.51.38.211 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this deletion, but the section ws not really lacking citations; it just included them inline and vaguely:
  • According to Xie Zhaozhe (谢肇淛)'s book ‘’Wuzazu(五杂组)‘’...
  • Li rihua(李日华)'s book Note of Liuyanzhai(六砚斋笔记)also reveals this game...
TJRC (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I restored the deleted text, because I was about to complain on the talk page about how this article has no History section. It has 2 inline citations; so if it is deficient, then instead of deleting it, people should try to improve/expand or rewrite the section. --70.166.133.138 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen suggestions the French name for the game, 'chifoumi', comes from 'hi-fu-mi', an abbreviated version of the Japanese words for 'one, two, three' (allegedly hito, futa, mitsu). Anyone have a reliable source for this? Or know enough Japanese to say if it may be right?RLamb (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another variation

One variation has been heard to use- Rabbit Gun Carrot. JohnsonL623 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Among schoolkids in Manchester, England in the 1950s it was called Scissors Paper Brick, though you wouldn't know it from their pronunciation (sizz-pap-brick! or sometimes sizz-pat-brick). Why the middle syllable was pronounced 'pap' and not 'pape' or 'pay' I never understood.RLamb (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

james bond version ??

my kids play a variation called james bond, where you can shoot (index finger pointed out) shield (arms crossed) load (I forget) and there are a couple of others. seems like it should be here; I bet there are 100s of variants like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.121.54 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sepp Linhart reference

Thanks for adding this reference, anonymous editor - it appears to be from a more authoritative source than any found so far. Although the game is apparently Chinese in its furthest origin, the earliest references in newspapers etc that I've seen so far certainly suggest it spread to the west in a Japanese form, and through contact with Japan. Linhart evidently is able to be definite about this.

I've tinkered with your prose to an extent, but I wasn't intending to alter your meaning, only make it clearer. If I've failed, I hope you'll re-edit to improve and correct the entry.

Lastly - I'd have supposed that Japanese sailors travelling to the west, rather than actual immigrants, first spread the game, as it seems to have appeared in Europe before the USA. If Linhart has definite evidence to the contrary though you might amend the article and cite him again.RLamb (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RPS25?

Is there a reason the RPS25 variant (umop.com/rps25) is not mentioned? Is it considered insufficiently notable (a reasonable argument!), or is there another .htmreason? I'm mildly surprised to see no mention here or in the Archives of this page, but maybe my idea of its notability incorrectly large? I guess along with the other variants at umop.com/rps including RPS101? jhawkinson (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Game Theory - Applications in conflict resolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19YhOIg5zTE
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Illegal moves?

In the article I found the sentence "In tournament play, some players employ tactics to confuse or trick the other player into making an illegal move, resulting in a loss". Can someone expand the article to explain about illegal moves (what they are, whether they indeed lead to a loss etc.)? 188.169.229.30 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

More than two players

As far as I can see, the article only talks about games of two players; how-ever, in Korea, rsp is used with groups of up to 8 or more to decide who goes first, etc. It is played extremely rapidly, with losers or winners quickly dropping out or tied players paring up in repeats until one person is left. (I'm not Korean, so I can't give details of what I see, but "any" Korean could \certainly explain it.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Pierre, papier, ciseaux, puits

I have asked for more information/clarification in the article regarding the "German version" of the game, especially as the article doesn't contain any historical information regarding either French or English versions. For instance, is it identical in all other respects e.g in being unbalanced, or is it simply an extension of the games with an odd number of weapon and so not really a variant of the French game at all? I have also moved the comment regarding the "German version" to the end. This respects a hierarchy ordering of information so that the statement "games of this kind", which in the paragraph imlicitly refers to the French version, precedes that regarding the "German version" which is considered in the paragraph to be a variant of it. However it seems to me that Rock Paper Scissors may well actually be a variant on the French game rather than vice versa. It seems to me that the French game, because its imbalance creates a different strategic approcah/games theory approach to playing, is a similar but different game, a little like chess and drafts, rather than a "version" of the English (?) game. LookingGlass (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Video

Want to play against them?

This video of someone's eyes while playing the game may be useful for the article. I didn't see a good way to insert it directly, though, so just putting it here in case someone else does. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Robots now 'perfect' at Rock-paper-scissors?

This was in the news and I thought it would be a great addition: [2]

Thanks!

184.182.190.146 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)JerryH

Rock-paper-scissors in video games

Can we get a [example needed] in this section? Chockyegg (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Rock - Paper - Scissors - Fire - Water Balloon

How about including this variation from Friends s10e8 "The One with the Late Thanksgiving"? Fire "beats everything" unless there is a water balloon. Water balloon beats fire. Flower of life (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shifumi

I've also heard it called "shifumi" is that Japanese?

Revert: "Not necessary"

I've made a change on the page, adding that the mentioned addition of the "bull" to the variant "rock, paper, scissors, well" makes it balanced again. I consider that a relevant, not immediately obvious fact, and thus worthy of mention; moreover the place where I added it was marked as "further explanation needed"; I think my addition qualifies as further explanation. It's also a small addition (just six words!), so you also cannot argue that it would bloat the article.

Yet it was reverted very shortly after by Ollieinc with the comment "not necessary". Reversion means that the edit made the article worse, right? So in which way did my edit make the article worse? --132.199.99.50 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard analysis error

The numerical approache modulo 5 is all wrong. If I read the chart correctly, Rock-Paper-Scissor-Spock-Lizard is represented by the first player winning if the first player's number minus the second player's number, modulo 5, is one or three, while the second player wins if the difference is two or four, boldface indicating difference from the current text.

But, as the entire analysis section is unsourced, I wouldn't know where to start tagging. I don't think this falls under WP:CALC.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The definition in the article and the one you've proposed are equivalent: they specify the same game, just with the labels attached to the weapons rearranged. The article's current definition would match up with the order: 0=rock, 1=spock, 2=paper, 3=lizard, 4=scissors. 2602:306:BDC1:9410:6D73:D85A:C427:39E5 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Consider the numbers from 0 to 2n for a game with 2n+1 choices. Then the following games produce the same results:
  1. Player 1 wins if the difference (player 1's choice minus player 2's choice) (mod 2n+1) is odd (or 1, 3, 5, ..., 2n−1); player 2 wins if the difference is even (2, 4, 6, ..., 2n), and it's a tie if the difference is 0.
  2. If a and b are different, then a beats b iff
    • (a < b) ↔ (a and b are the same parity).
The winning differences from representation 1 can be changed to 1, 2, 3, ..., n by renumbering to step by -2 (rock-Spock-paper-lizard-scissors). If n = 1 (rock-paper-scissors), then these two representations are the same, as -2 ≡ 1 (mod 3).
This is all original research, though. However, it's sufficiently non-controversial that if a legitimate mathematician published the result on his or her web site, it should be adequate. I'll see if I can get access to one of my websites (probably at CalTech) to post it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Rock-paper-scissors analogies in nature section

This is the first time I've read this article, and this section seems really pointless and out of place. I don't want to just remove it, but I really don't think it needs to be here! Snorgle (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What seems out of place about it? It's something that exists in nature but was hard to explain, but if one is familiar with the children's game, the lizards, etc are easily understood. It's analogous. JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snorgle: I feel you are incorrect. It is precisely analyses like these that make this encyclopedia worthwhile, and valuable above what is found in the library. You won't get this on Britannica, and the section to which you refer is well cited.
(I should note, for those unaware, that WP:N refers to the existence of an article at all, not what it contains. Only what can be correctly sourced determines that. It is a large encyclopedia, not limited to the availability and cost of ink.)   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gesture, totem, token, move, or object? Or are these really "weapons" in a children's game?

I'm having a problem with what is currently the wording of the topic heading at section 7, sub-section 7.1, "Additional weapons".

My problem is with the section heading language, the text of the article overall is fine with me. But "weapon" is a concept of gamers, and we are not gamers, we are editors (yeah, we're also gamers, but we need to put that aside here). I feel that "Additional gestures" is probably most appropriate, but I'd like to get "weapon" out of this sub-section heading.

Note that the word "gesture" is used in the section itself, and that the paragraph previous to the section uses the word "totem".

Is there discussion or agreement? Thanks.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Weapons" is a perfectly acceptable word, and what do you mean by "gamers", video-gamers? What do weapons have to do with videogames other than first-person shooters and the like? What is the association you are trying to make? The concept of a weapon long preceded any video games. There's millions of examples of kids in the 1930s going "bang bang" with a "finger gun", where did they get that "concept of a 'weapon'" from? Lastly, who is "we"? Are "we" editors? That's irrelevant, wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors. JesseRafe (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

New Variation

A new variation by Michael Gregorovich is Cave-Water-Dynamite. The cave holds back the water but not the dynamite. The dynamite explodes the cave but is extinguished by the water. The water defeats the dynamite but not the cave. Water symbol is a flat hand. Cave symbol is a cupped hand facing down. Dynamite is an extended thumb.76.67.75.136 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see bullet one at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If you can cite a source, perhaps we can consider including this. Otherwise, I'm having a problem with how a cave holds back water.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael, not only is Aladdin 100% correct in that this is not a forum for discussion on the article's subject, but dynamite both works under water and is not composed of anything flammable per se, thus there is nothing to "extinguish". JesseRafe (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strategy

The strategy section only mentions methods to predict the opponents choice, but I believe observing the opponents hand and modifying your choice after they have chosen is an effective strategy. I seem to remember there is a robot that can play an unbeatable game versus a human opponent using this method. Also I think there are a few other similar methods that involve delaying your choice, going on the 4th beat etc. These should be included. Ashmoo (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, cheating is often an effective short-term strategy in anything, games, school, relationships or life. You might mention it is a way to cheat, sure.JesseRafe (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean "robot"? I ask because some people use it as a playful generic term even referring to programs and simulators, and there was one online (then made famous by being featured in the NYT) that "learned" complex patterns of a player and would, eventually, beat you everytime. As it was online, it did not, could not, proceed in that manner. If there was an actual robot with an electronic eye or camera that registered moves, and then cheated to beat the human, I don't recall an instance of it. JesseRafe (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If cheating is a widely adopted strategy for any game, I think the WP article should mention it. And I think most people don't realise it is even possible to "cheat" at RPS, or that people would even consider it cheating to watch the opponents hand. The robot I remember was indeed a mechanical arm/hand with a camera attached. I'll see if I can dig something up. Ashmoo (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Superfast rock-paper-scissors robot 'wins' every time, from 2013. --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rock-paper-scissors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Two authors at loggerheads?

This part of the article and the part after it reads like it is written by two people:

The first known mention of the game was in the book Wuzazu (zh) (simplified Chinese: 五杂俎; traditional Chinese: 五雜組) by the Chinese Ming-dynasty writer Xie Zhaozhi (谢肇淛; fl. ca. 1600), who wrote that the game dated back to the time of the Chinese Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD).[6] In the book, the game was called shoushiling (手势令; lit "hand command"). Li Rihua's (李日华) book Note of Liuyanzhai (六砚斋笔记) also mentions this game, calling it shoushiling (手势令), huozhitou (豁指头), or huoquan (豁拳).

Throughout Japanese history there are frequent references to "sansukumi-ken" (三竦み拳), meaning "ken" (拳) [fist] games with a three-way [三] (san) deadlock [竦み] (sukumi), in the sense that A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.[7] The games originated in China before being imported to Japan and subsequently becoming popular.[7]

One person wants to explain, and the other person wants to put more and more references to China into the article. It seems to me that a synthesis and rewrite is necessary here. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with RPS 25

Not sure if this is notable enough to merit its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s not. — Christoph Päper 08:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Names of the games

The section Additional weapons discusses a five-weapon variant in some detail, referring to it by two different names: the inventors' name, "rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard",[3] and the name used in an episode of The Big Bang Theory, "rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock".[4] The difference may seem insignificant, but that depends on the context. When players talk about the game informally, they know what beats what, and the order of the weapons in the name may not matter. But for analysis and strategy (as well as mnemonics) of any variant with more than three weapons, the order of the weapons is essential, and the name used there should reflect that.

Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard resolution diagram
Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard gestures
Resolution and gesture diagrams for rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard

The importance of order is visible in the illustration of the five-weapon game's structure. Starting with the traditional "Rock" and moving counterclockwise around the diagram, it follows the order of the name given by the inventors. The structure shown by the arrows is symmetrical and easy to read. But if Spock and lizard were switched, as in the name used in The Big Bang Theory, the pattern would be twisted and hard to read, and the corresponding name would be mnemonically incorrect and would likely lead to mistakes and arguments in play.

The files used in the diagram are named following the order in The Big Bang Theory. I have changed the names used in the caption (parameters footer, alt1, alt2) to match the order of the diagram and the original name, but not of course the names of the image files.

References

  1. ^ http://www.leakylounge.com/Giants-Elves-Wizards-t48572.html
  2. ^ http://boingboing.net/2013/11/04/robot-will-beat-you-at-rock-pa.html
  3. ^ Sam Kass. "Original Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard Page". Retrieved 2009-03-11.
  4. ^ Lorre, Chuck. "The Big Bang Theory Video — Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock — CBS.com" (video). CBS. Retrieved 4 September 2012.

--Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rock–paper–scissors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved - There is a strong consensus against the proposed name change (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rock–paper–scissors → Rock, paper, scissors – First off, this article is very badly written. Just look at the lead sentence! Also, the article refers to the game as “rock-paper-scissors,” yet the game is spelt “rock paper scissors” later in the article. About its name, by the way, when googling it, I only see “Rock, paper, scissors,” not “Rock–paper–scissors.” Why does the name use en dashes instead of hyphens, by the way? There are so many things wrong with this article. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Move to Rock Paper Scissors. However you punctuate it, there will be people who punctuate it the other way, so the best option is to not punctuate at all.  ONR  (talk)  12:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, border on strong. Because it's not ever going to be clearly one way, might as well leave it as it is with all the inbound links intact. Many of the sources, even some of the best, such as the BBC, use hyphens/dashes (too many typefaces and too little interest for me say how many are which). In fact, over on the Evolutionary game theory article, every scientific journal cited in the relevant section uses hyphens/dashes, so I think that should be probative:

    41 Hoffman, M; Suetens, S; Gneezy, U; Nowak, M (2015). "An experimental investigation of evolutionary dynamics in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game". Scientific Reports. 5: 8817. Bibcode:2015NatSR...5E8817H. doi:10.1038/srep08817. PMC 4351537 Freely accessible. PMID 25743257.
    42 Cason, T; Friedman, D; Hopkins, E (2014). "Cycles and Instability in a Rock–Paper–Scissors Population Game: A Continuous Time Experiment". Review of Economic Studies. 81 (1): 112–136. doi:10.1093/restud/rdt023.

    The best we can do for this article is make it internally consistent for sure, but since it's not going to match up 100% with all the sources, and the current punctuation matches some big-name sources, and since that's the long-established name of the article, it should be kept status quo. OK, I convinced myself: Strong Oppose. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not that anyone has made this argument above, but in case anyone does below, I went through and every instance of commas between the words was when they were used as common nouns, not the proper noun name of the game, or any use of commas between the words or no punctuation at all matched with the published source cited. So the article is currently consistent in that regard. And for what it's worth, the website for the USA Rock Paper Scissors League now seems to be some Swedish travel website. JesseRafe (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh; oppose, I guess. Look, some would style it "rock-paper-scissors", some "rock, paper, scissors"; maybe some even "rock/paper/scissors". It doesn't matter, really. I could see worrying about this if it were a matter of diambiguation, so that a reader is spared having to select the article she wanted from a list. But redirects are cheap and the reader gets to this page quickly regardless of whether "Rock-paper-scissors" is the article name and "Rock, paper, scissors" is the redirect; or vice-versa. More Wikipedia CPU is being used to handle this discussion than will probably be expended in redirection. Oppose as a Waste of Time. 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES - " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" The main argument for moving is about inconsistency of the name within the article, which is more of a copy-edit issue rather than moving the page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't care, but big fat WP:TROUT gentle remonstrance to User:PapiDimmi for moving the article while the move discussion was in progress. I might even agree that it's a better title, but no, you just can't do that. It's seriously improper. --Trovatore (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. PapiDimmi, knock it off. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_paper_scissors/Archive_1&oldid=1087139340"