Jump to content

Talk:Trump (card games)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Trump (playing card))

Redirect

[edit]

User:162.83.158.202 has reverted the redirect back to an article, with the edit saying that Knock-out Whist is not the same as this game. However, searching "trump card game" yields no good results and [1] says Trumps the card game is Knock-out Whist. Can you provide a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourBurst (talkcontribs) 23:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is different from Trumps (note the s). I'm working on finding external sources for Trump but in the meantime, I'd like to continue building the wikipedia page for it with the rules I know. You're welcome to create a 'Trumps' page and have that redirect to Knock-out Whist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattiyeh (talkcontribs) 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there is a middle-eastern game called pronounced 'tarneeb' in english, which directed me here. I hope the above-mentioned completes the article! --Xtcrider 03:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revise or Delete

[edit]

This article is very possibly the ugliest, most confused pile of dung I have every encountered (though not the biggest—that would go to the article "2000s"). I frankly doubt that there are any authentic references to this game. My suspicion is that, when they were a child, someone was taught bridge or another game that involves trump cards, and that they put together this article from their foggy and inaccurate memories. I'm going to delete this or scour it nearly clean if no one fixes it in the next week or so. Unschool 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German, Danish, Norwegian, Esperanto and Swedish articles on trump cards all link here, and since no such article on trumps actually existed, I put one here. While there may be game sometimes called trump (but usually other names) we shouldn't confuse people over a mega obscurity. 2005 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we shouldn't confuse people over a mega obscurity

Needs a more general description/explaination

[edit]

For those of us who don't play card games, but are interested in the phenomenon, would be great. I finally wanted to look this up, because of a Twain quote:

Tell the truth or trump - but get the trick.
-- Mark Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ (1894)

And I've seen references to it in the Amber series... So I'd like more details on what it's suppossed to mean, so that I can get where the authors are taking off from.
~ender 2007-04-15 09:50:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's impressive how good a job this article currently does at NOT explaining what a trump is. 130.89.228.82 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Many trick-taking games contain a trump suit. Cards in the trump suit outrank all others. If trump is played to a trick led in another suit, the highest card of the trump suit (rather than the highest card in the led suit) wins.

Trump may be static or dynamic. Static trump is featured in Spades, where the spade suit is always trump, as well as many tarock games where a separate trump suit (in addition to the other four) is featured. When trump is dynamic, as in Contract Bridge, it is usually declared by the winner of the auction, the right to choose trump being an incentive for players to bid; or in some games, such as Oh Hell and the original form of Whist, it is determined randomly by exposing a card (in this case it's as if the trump was static, but it adds some psychological variety to the game and makes it more difficult to cheat while dealing the cards if the trump suit is only chosen in the end of the deal).

In some games, certain special cards are high trumps regardless of the actual trump suit. For example, in skat, jacks are the highest four trumps.

Some games have more than one trump suit, such as Stortok, in which there are two trumps, with one superseding the other.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See also

[edit]

I like how at the bottom of this article it links to race card. --208.114.177.246 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was see talk:Trump (disambiguation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Trump (card games)Trump — Per discussion at Talk:Trump: The card game meaning of the term is the original and most common one. Hans Adler 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

unrelated metaphorical use

[edit]

The line that reads "She's not really running for president, she's pulling a Trump. She's pretending to consider it for fame, money, and her reality show." is completely unrelated to the word "trump", it seems more like a joke on Donald Trump. I would remove it, but can't. 89.154.91.60 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it 66.41.128.154 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2016

[edit]
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 Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]



– To reverse this 2010 RM. The attention this page (by either page views or vandalism) is because of Donald Trump. Because of this, this article doesn't seem to be the primary topic anymore. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 00:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the card game term is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to long-term significance, as it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". If Donald Trump goes on to become president, I would probably reverse this stance, but as things stand now, the long-term significance of the card game term trumps Donald's short term notoriety.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

[edit]

Change the leading hatnote to "This article is about the card trick. For the businessman and 2016 U.S. presidential candidate, see Donald Trump. For other uses, see Trump (disambiguation).".

122.61.62.10 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done st170etalk 21:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping the earlier question:
Why?
The previous hatnote was perfectly functional. This adds additional and incorrect verbiage, since a "trump" is not a card trick.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Move page to Trump (card games); make Trump a redirect to Donald Trump. Trump is now going to be the 45th President of America. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, we didn't redirect Bush, did we? The common noun still counts as primary. Arguably (as in Bush) make Trump the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2016

[edit]
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: Disambiguate. The nominator's rationale was based on a presumption that a POTUS should be presumed to be the primary topic for their surname. There was little support for that broad principle, and clear evidence that it is not reflected in en.wp's current treatment of the majority of surnames. The uncontested evidence is that current practice is to treat each case on its merits.

There is some support for the proposition that the card game is the primary topic, but a clear consensus that it is not.

There is more support for the treating the American president-elect as the primary topic, but no numerical consensus that it is actually so. The various assertions of primacy for the Donald being "what most readers want" are arguments founded in policy, but unaccompanied by any metrics. The counter-arguments of long-term significance are also well-founded in policy, and also unsupported by evidence.
Since no data was offered to support either view, I see no reason to add more weight to either the long-term argument or the current-usage argument. So on a binary choice between the President and the dab page, this comes down to the numbers.

I also found no consensus on whether the claimed primacy of the POTUS-elect reflected a global perspective on the topic.

Analysing the numbers as a whole, I find that of those who expressed an explicit preference (rather than just making a comment):

  • Disambiguation: 22 editors
  • Redirect to Trump: 18 editors
  • Oppose any move: 9 editors
  • Oppose move to Trump, but OK with disambiguation: 4

Given the low level of support for the status quo, a no-consensus closure (which would default to the status quo) would clearly be perverse. However, disambiguation would be supported by 26 editors, against 18 who prefer a redirect to Trump ... so I weigh this discussion as a weak consensus to disambiguate.

The moves to be performed are therefore:

However, given the high profile of this issue and the number of links to be fixed, I will delay for three days before performing the moves to see whether a move review is opened. If no review is initiated, or this closure is upheld at WP:MR, I will then implement the move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]



TrumpTrump (card games) – Donald Trump is now President-elect of the United States, convert Trump to a redirect per above. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That will be the case in the US, but what about Scotland, Italy, Latvia? StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt it will be the case elsewhere for his victory made headlines worldwide, he also owns numerous properties in other countries. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The guidelines on determining what the primary topic will be mention usage and longevity. I would agree it is "highly likely" that Donald Trump's article is the one being sought when a user queries "trump." US presidents maintain fame as recognized names for decades and beyond, so the longevity criteria for making Donald Trump the primary article for "trump" is also fulfilled. Darkestshining (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose specific redirect, Support dab per comments above. jxm (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but support moving Trump (disambiguation) here instead. At this time, Donald Trump has made its importance to stop this article becoming a primary topic, but can't currently be primary. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 01:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per free-association test. When you overhear someone say the word "trump", the first word that pops into your head is "Donald", not "suit". --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - forget Bush, of which there are two. What about "Obama" redirecting sensibly to the president instead of the Japanese city? That city was around centuries before Barack, but be honest, what would people be searching for when they type in Obama in 2050, 2100? Valentina Cardoso (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation Alternative — The very fact that this is producing a lot of debate shows that the only reasonable answer is to point to the DAB page. Whenever there are several plausible, reasonable main pages, you default to the disambiguation. Yes, some of you love Trump and want it to point to him, and some of you hate Trump and want it to point as far from him as possible...but both of you should be able to agree to pointing to the DAB. — Kaz (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per above. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose as per above, and in order to make wikipedia great again! Support for a long form disambiguation page. AugustinMa (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dab page. Even before he was president-elect, Donald Trump was one of the most common uses of this term. Should he be primary? Maybe, but this page certainly should not be. kennethaw88talk 07:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Evking22 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making Trump the main title header of the disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People have been talking about the card terminology before Donald was born, and they'll be talking about it years after he's died. Just because it's a popular search term now, doesn't mean it will remain the case in the long-term. Nobody ever gained consensus for changing Bush in the first 7 years of Wikipedia's existence. (Also for light reading, see the "Palin" edit wars documented at WP:LAME). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those commenting on Donald Trump's long term significance, I don't deny that he has some, as a US president, but I also think his long term significance is lower than the card game term. This criterion was invented to cover enduring encyclopedic topics, such as Apple, which will likely still be relevant 200 years from now. It is not to deny the overarching and long term importance of, for example, Apple Inc., but just to highlight the fact that, encylopedically, the fruit's significance will live on even after centuries, while the corporation probably won't be exactly there in its present form, even though many people will remember it as a pioneer in this age of technology. The same goes for card game terms vs. US presidents. Those from the past tend to fade into obscurity. Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft... sure, many people can name these guys (and many others around the world cannot), but their significance is vastly less than it was at the time of their presidencies.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, ha, if things change in 200 years we can revisit the issue then, but this isn't the primary topic of the term "trump" even now, any more than, say Suit (cards), Spades (suit)s, Flush (cards), Joker (playing card), or Straight (poker) are the primary topics of those ambiguous terms. That dog won't hunt. This topic isn't even the primary topic of Trump card, and the ambiguous topics there are a lot less notable than the President of the United States, his widely recognizable company that predates his birth, various other independent companies named Trump, and historically-significant non-Donald related topics.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The example about Tarot trump is not pertinent, the are they are the first historical example of card trump. The name "Major trump" is only a similitude with the occult use of Tarot that call them "Major arcana", but in tarot games they are simple "trump".--Moroboshi (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is pertinent, it's another article readers may be searching for with the term "trump".--Cúchullain t/c 13:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how a western playing card term is more historically important then a US president who has specifically over three decades branded himself by his last name? One will be taught in schools (encyclopedias/textbooks, funnily enough.) one will not. GuzzyG (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not a textbook and they are many articles topics not covered in school. Regarding Donald Trump, maybe he will be a great presidente, maybe he will be a footnote in history books, I dont have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Moroboshi (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Footnote" name me a textbook who would not include a US President over a playing card term or better yet any book with the playing card term? GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My error I didn't link the relevant page: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.--Moroboshi (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's just false. The city was named in the 1790s. Why does Obama redirect to the president other then Obama, Fukui then? What do you think has more a chance of being taught to a child or university student, a US president (who specifically publicizes and uses his last name for everything) or a playing card term? GuzzyG (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential surnames checklist

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

For the record, as of this writing, on November 16, 2016, 33 31 of the above surnames point to disambiguation pages, 4 (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Obama) point directly to the president, and 2 (Ford and Trump) 4 (Garfield, Cleveland, Ford and Trump) point to another subject. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually four; Garfield is about the comic strip and Cleveland is about the city. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction. I have adjusted the above sentence to reflect the revised statistics. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should all cases be treated alike? Seems that the foregoing debate is more of a policy decision than a specific move question related to Donald Trump. How are similar cases treated in the other-language Wikis for their key political figures. Newwhist (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Some last names are going to be uncommon enough that a redirect to the president is acceptable, some are going to warrant DAB pages, and some are going to have other unrelated primary topics. Which policy are you referring to? Nohomersryan (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the surnames list is "for the record", since former presidents have been mentioned during the discussion. Wikipedia came into being five days before the end of the Clinton administration and has spent its entire continuing existence under the two eight-year presidencies of Bush and Obama, with the latter being one of the four presidential surnames given a direct link to the main article. The primary relevance of such long-ago surnames as Tyler, Polk, Taylor and Fillmore lies in providing a historical background for this discussion.
As for other-language Wikis, we cannot even agree that such Wikis are pertinent to the English Wikipedia. In the currently active vote proposing that Carl Jung be moved to Carl Gustav Jung, the form used in 67 out of the 71 Wikipedias in which his biography appears, there is uncertainty in obtaining consensus regarding the other Wikis' relevance or ability to provide guidance in such matters. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Post move

[edit]

Replying to my !vote above I read That's just false. The city was named in the 1790s. Why does Obama redirect to the president other then Obama, Fukui then? What do you think has more a chance of being taught to a child or university student, a US president (who specifically publicizes and uses his last name for everything) or a playing card term? GuzzyG

I think my comment on Cleveland was misunderstood, but that's just a quibble. And Obama, Fukui (a city of 32,185 people) probably just needs to get used to comments like this.

But as to what is taught to a child or university student, it may depend a bit on geography. There are universities, and even State Universities, outside of the USA, you know. And also children, for that matter. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i would happen to know. I am in Australia (across the globe) and we are taught about US Presidents too.. Can't say the same about a playing card term though, i've heard similar stories by a lot of international students here too, they've never heard of the western playing card either but they all discuss Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting... I am also in Australia, and have been involved in the primary school system as an SRE teacher for many years, and went rhough the system myself some years ago. Agree that current affairs, and US Presidents as part of that, are and have long been part of the curriculum. But my impression is that most Australian schoolchildren would also be familiar with the Standard 52-card deck and games played with it (and with subsets, of it such as Euchre and three- or four-handed Five hundred). Not yours?
Did you understand the jibe about State Universities? Don't you think that's funny? Andrewa (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying the POETUS isn't the primary topic, and saying that trumps in card games are. Methinks a lot of people arguing the second are really arguing the first, which is a far better supported claim. Not everyone in any country plays cards, and not everyone who plays cards plays games that include trumps, nevermind the pageviews showing decisively that it receives only a fraction of hits for ambiguous topics.--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But we ended up with a good result despite this confusion. (But should that be PEOTUS?) Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

[edit]

trump is now the president Sliimjimmyjj (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Not clear what changes are requested - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename

[edit]

This page should be renamed to Trump (playing card) or Trump (card) rather than Trump (card games). It just sounds better. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sexual abuse accusations

[edit]

This Link Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations seems to have either disappeared from the article or buried in it..this is wrong.107.217.84.95 (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What card game is that part of? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Russian name козырь

[edit]

Hatnote

[edit]

I've replaced the recently added complex redirect with a simple one to the dab page. Apologies for not giving a clear reason at the time. To be honest, when Donald Trump fades from view, this can return to being the primary article anyway. Bermicourt (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2600:1006:B066:3AE6:C495:41BE:A0A0:2F70 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]