Talk:Ruff (cards)

Merge

I disagree with the merge -- crossruff is a separate, and quite more specific term than ruff. It is (more or less) specific to bridge, has several specific gotchas (cash side winners first...), defensive considerations etc. It stands out of context of ruff. Duja 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is more specific but I believe it will be helpful to readers to view all aspect of ruffing in one article. Crossruff is not a very long article and I have merged it keeping its entire content and form so I don't see what is lost by the merge. Crossruff is a particular form/usage of ruff and is very easy to find in the index. Abtract 08:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a matter of style, but Ruff (cards) wasn't meant to be bridge-specific in the first place. And this is a hypertext encyclopedia, where contents of more detailed articles are one click away. More often than not, I (and, as studies show—I can dig out the links if you wish— majority of internet users) are casual readers: when I look for a specific piece of information, I don't want to browse 20 kB of text to find it. And when I click on bridge Crossruff I don't expect it embedded in the middle of a long article related with ruffing in card games. Duja 10:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is greatly expanded and not even close to too long. Crossruff is one type of ruff and belongs here. There is no reason to have a separate article. 2005 10:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trump promotion is hardly "just a type of ruff".
Ruff (cards) barely deserves to have an article of its own, being more a dictonary term than a stuff deserving an article. It could even easily be merged into Trump (cards) or Trick-taking game. What I disagree is that you make redirects out of well-formed articles with narrow topic scope into this catch-all-and-then-some topic. Duja 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you say ruff barely deserves an article, then you say disagree with redirecting an even SMALLER scope article into a more robust one. I don't see how those two comments can coexist. Certainly the article could still be tweaked more, but also certainly there is no reason to have multiple articles about various ruffs when they can all sensibly be covered in a single article that avoids redundancies. 2005 11:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Coup en passant is a) a type of ruff (general card term) b) a type of coup (bridge) c) a special case of Finesse. As such, there is a case for merging it into each of those, but as a specific term with specific scope it would IMO function best as a separate article. The article Ruff (cards) could be expanded somewhat, but inheritably could not gain much quantity except to refer to rules and techniques in various games. I'm not really advocating deleting/redirecting it, but I'm also against making a monster out of it. IOW, I'm advocating that the things are reverted to the previous state of affairs. Duja 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't even close to a monster. It could easily still be 50% longer. This article should deal with ruffs in all card games. Those specific types of ruffs, particularly those not called "ruff", can be mentioned here in one or two sentences and then longer articles can be linked as "see main article". If certain ruffs aren't mentioned here, they should be. This article is still quite short so there is no reason to link to a bunch of specific stubs, and definitely should not do so until this article is an exhaustive list of all ruffs. If, as you say the article is now the combination of four or five articles, then that is good editing to combine them. If other articles should be mentioned and linked to, then that should be added to make the article better. 2005 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we have in effect a WP:FORK, which is unacceptable one way or another. I don't pretend to be an owner of bridge articles, but this article's scope has become only bridge, and a collection of semi-related issues at that. Bordering with WP:POINT, would you also like to merge all Category:Bridge squeezes articles into one? That would indeed make "helpful to readers to see all aspects". Duja 11:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a bridge article, and if you think it could use more content on other games, then add it. Don't just blindly delete what is here simply because you don't like detailed articles, or because it could have more content that you choose not to add. 2005 11:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the contents were copied from four or five respective standalone articles and they were made redirects—maybe you didn't notice that. I don't mind they're cross-referenced from here in form of small headings with {{main}} or entries in "See also". None of the merged articles was too big, but neither was too small either, and they have a potential for expansion to a moderate size. And I don't think that all of them are mere special cases of ruff (or, I'd see such view as stretched). Duja 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started all this with my (overly?) bold edits, perhaps I could attempt to bring it to a conclusion. Having read the above with interest it seems clear to me that:

"ruff", "crosruff" and "ruff and discard":
- are not specifically bridge terms
- are very much linked to each other
- would benefit the reader by being in the same article
- do not deserve separate articles
"coup en passant" on the other hand:
- may have been a step too far, I can see that now
- it does fit in very comfortably with ruffing for obvious reasons
- but it also sits comfortably with finesse for equally obvious reasons
trump promotion and uppercut are not so easy:
- since they are two names for the same technique, only one article is required (called trump promotion?)
- they are clearly related to ruff because the whole technique depends on taking a ruff at just the right moment and with just the right card
- they are not exclusively bridge terms; trump promotion can be used in any partnership whist type game
- however it is arguably bigger than simply a variation on ruffing
- for me the killer is that it doesn't fit in with any other article and, as a small article, it would benefit from being put into context with ruff etc

My proposal

Article Ruff (cards) should contain sections on ruff, crossruff, ruff and discard, and trump promotion.
No separate articles are required for these 4 topics
In the spirit of compromise, a separate article should be retained for Coup en passant and this should be referred to in the Ruff (cards) article.

I will act accordingly so that you can see in practice what I have in mind. No doubt you will each comment as you see it. Abtract 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention "dummy reversal" but this seems to me to be a clear case of an example of a usage of ruffing in practice - admittedly it is very contract bridge oriented but I still believe it sits better in this article than alone, so I have acted accordingly.Abtract 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a contract bridge project?
- If there is, I would like to join it
- If there isn't, why not? Even poker has a project!

I think we reached a critical mass of editors for a WikiProject, and now we could set up one as well. I'm kind of busy these days, but I'll try to set up the framework as soon as I could get to it. I kind of set up a ToDo-list on User:Duja/Bridge so I'll try to improve it when I find some time. I'll let everyone know personally when done.Duja 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any implementation is fine with me, but my prinicpal interest is in seeing the ruff articles combined, and in seeing sensible links to related to articles. If something is not specifically called "ruff" it should probably only be mentioned, and linked to in a separate article. If you want to start a bridge project, that would be a nice thing. 2005 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge. Some tidying required, indeed. Charles Matthews 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being overvoted, I'll concede (but withhold my opinion on opposing the merge). We could take a look at how The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge classifies the matter though—as I see it, our aim is to write one on our own. (Unfortunately, I don't own a copy, but we can take bits and pieces from it and use it as a model). With the merger, though, we're making this article bridge-specific (well, whist too, but nowadays it mostly comes under bridge entry) (after making a general card game introduction about ruffs). BridgeGuys.com is also a nice resource and I often use it as a source (carefully trying to avoid copyvios).Duja 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that, even with merger, Trump promotion and Uppercut should have their own articles (even if merged mutually), as that idea has several specific concepts. (Btw, it's not "Trump promotion or Uppercut"; the two terms are either distinct or the latter is subset of the former). So, I can (unhappily) live with crossruff and dummy reversal merged here, but trump promotion is really a long shot from a "ruff". Duja 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, this seems a happy outcome I will leave it merged as my suggestion above. If you read the previous articles on trump promotion and uppercut they are in fact one and the same thing. Abtract 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not (and new version does not even mention the difference). Uppercut occurs only when the declarer is 4th (or 3rd) hand and his RHO ruffs high. Trump promotion (in the narrow sense) occurs only when the defender plays after the declarer. Duja 10:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I agree with practically all Duja sys in this case - I had started to say my pov in 'Trump Promotion' but I noticed most of the argument is here and Duja has made many of the points I as going to. I feel the set up with individual article is concise and easy to use. I don't really see the need to merge them and there are always differences between named plays - that is why they have their own names. Cambion 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am happy with it as it is now. I have learned a lot doing this and hope to put that knowledge to good use in improving bridge and other articles. Bear with me if I am too enthusiastic, I mean well. Abtract 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Minor suggestion for the list of ruffs

It seems to me that saying 'for more info click here' a dozen times is wasteful. Perhaps the list could be like Coup_(bridge) where the title of each is clickable. People are clever enough to notice a hyperlink. Cambion 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]