Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper/Archive 1

not all versions have first click behaviour?

it is written that not all versions of minesweeper have the no mine in the first click behaviour, I could not find anything in the internet that confirms that. also the reference says nothing of the sort. someone can prove it and add a reference (or just the versions of windows in which it does not occur). 84.229.83.78 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

It is annoying to see this article stealing my original research and not linking or citing the source. I discovered Donner ported the game and made improvements on Johnson's game by interviewing the game authors, as part of hundreds of hours researching the game. The source this was taken from is the Wiki on my minesweeper site: www.minesweeper.info/wiki/Windows_Minesweeper. The version Johnson wrote was an OS/2 port of an earlier game and so on back to an original game in 1982 made in England. - Damien

Untitled

The content of this article was split from Minesweeper_(computer_game)#Windows. Darksun 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Board IS Generated Before First Click

(Note: Refers to XP SP2 version, I can't comment on other builds) If you attach to the game with a debugger and watch the memory where the board is saved you see that the mines are placed in new random positions every time the program starts, the smiley face button is pressed, or the difficulty is changed. If you click on one of the mines as your first click, a new mine is placed somewhere else and the square you clicked on is treated as if it were not a mine. So it's true that you can't lose on the first click, but it is technically inaccurate to claim that the board is not generated until the first click. Latkin 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you click on a square that is a mine, the game moves the mine to the top left box (box 1). If that box is occupied already, it moves it into the next box to the right, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.167.66 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative cheat code

xyzzy <ENTER>,<SHIFT> or xyzzy <SHIFT>,<ENTER> also works. It's for a long time as far as I remember. --Apoc2400 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? When I try it nothing special happens! 99.230.152.143 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It works for me on Windows XP SP2. At first, I thought it was the pixel in the game window. It's actually the top left pixel of your monitor. Which is kind of strange... 72.226.136.116 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

does not work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.37.98 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oberon = Bogus

I'm removing the claim that the game is being developped by "Oberon", because it feels bogus:

1. safe from minor details, the game development has been freezed from eons now, so why would MS delegate development to another company;
2. a company called Oberon is actually selling a "minesweeper-like" game (see below); "like" imples "not the same";
3. google "minesweeper oberon" yields nothing relevant; first results are:
   • this wikipedia article
   • "Betrapped", a "minesweeper game by Oberon Media", unrelated (only remotely "minesweeper-like")
   • "oberon system 3 games" (where Oberon is an O.S.)
   • (followed by other Oberon-OS-related links)
4. my XP version makes no mention of "Oberon Software" in its about box
5. there is no Minesweeper clone in Oberon Games's catalog

and there was no reference given in the article to support the claim.

--FvdP 19:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The version of Minesweeper included in Windows Vista was developed by Oberon Games. Themodernizer 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is there evidence for that ? Does the Vista version of Minesweeper mention it ? --FvdP 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, after a bit of searching I've found this (search for "MineSweeper"). --FvdP 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vista does mention it in the about-box. (Vista SP1 Swedish) "Röj är utvecklat för Microsoft Corporation av Oberon Games och Microsoft Corporation" translates: Minesweeper is developed for Microsoft Corporation by Oberon Games and Microsoft Corporation. Kirayatail (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimal size is 9x9

I just observed that the minimal size is 9x9 on XP. This probably means that:

• the beginners board is 9x9 instead of 8x8 for (mostly) that very reason, other reasons being secundary;
• the probable one real reason for the minimal size change is that Windows controls changed and the minimal size had to be increased to accomodate them;
• most other proposed reasons for the 9x9 beginners board are irrelevant.

If other people could confirm that the minimal size is 9x9 since W2000 onward, we could edit the article to reflect these new conclusions.

--FvdP (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...but it might be the other way round (minimum size increased so as not to be smaller than beginner size), only Microsoft insiders could definitely tell... --FvdP (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did the changes (with a twist, as the size of the title in the title bar is the only reasonable explanation related to OS user interface changes.)

Even though i've just replaced personal research (PR) by other personal research, I think it's better this way, in order to:

1. remove dubious previous claims
2. yet still say something about the reasons of the change, to prevent other people from adding dubious claims back.

If you prefer to remove my explanations on the ground of PR, it's OK, but mind my 2nd point.

--FvdP (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that the minimum size was changed to 9x9 because boards whose size is 3n-1 suffer from the problem that a row can be undecidable. For instance, on the 8x8 board, both X--X--X- and -X--X--X produce a row of 1s on either side. --80.175.250.222 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the board size, there will be undecidable boards. So no, I don't think they changed the minimum size for such a reason. --FvdP (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The face

Does the smiley face have any purpose except for "dying" when lost and wearing glasses when won? And opening a mouth if clicked on it or on the empty square? Said by HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When a game has been lost, clicking on the face will immediately present you with a new game without having to click on the file menu.

Glitches

I recently added a glitches section to this article, including the 'xyzzy' glitch. Hope this is okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWiilliams (talk • contribs) 11:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not - Wikipedia is not a game guide, and shouldn't list cheat modes for video games. If a glitch is legendary enough to have been written about by a WP:RS (like the original xyzzy), then it can be written up, but it'd be inappropriate to list every glitch in every video game, in an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Goal of the game technicality

Technically, the goal of the game/win condition is not the marking of all the mines. The goal is the clearing of all non-mine spaces. In fact, you can win the game without ever marking a mine; when you clear the last non-mine square, the game automatically marks all the remaining squares as mines instantly. It's been years since I last marked a mine while playing Minesweeper. John Darrow (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the main article is unclear. Instead of saying that the goal of the game is to uncover the mines (for it could be said that clicking on a mine is uncovering it), it would be better to say that the goal of the game is to discover the locations of the mines by a process of logic in order to avoid uncovering the mines.

Difference between Vista and XP openings

Regardless of whether the board is generated before opening or not, there is a key difference between the XP version (refering to SP2) and Vista version. The Vista board always opens with an empty square (resulting in at least 3x3 iteration opening (or equivalent at edge of board). I personally think this is a significant difference and should be mentioned in the article. Kirayatail (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

red X feature

I read about this in the article but was unable to see it on my computer. Looking at the history, this has been in the article since May 18, 2008. Can anyone see this feature? From what I can tell, double-clicking is no different from simultaneously clicking right and left. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Windows Vista version, the red X briefly flashes in the square (together with a popping sound) on which you use the feature if there isn't the right number of flags around it. It's indeed no different whether you double-click, both-click or middle-click - that was an inaccuracy in the article which I have now fixed. -- Smjg (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OR?

The Features section is completely unreferenced. At first I surmised that the information on how it works had been put here from an empirical probability analysis, or maybe by a current or former Microsoft employee who had worked on the game (or otherwise has access to the source code). But then I found the discussion here suggesting that it was reverse engineered using a debugger.

It seems to me that either empirical probability analysis or reverse engineering constitutes OR, unless the result of it really has been taken from a third-party source, in which case it should have citations. If it's from someone who worked on the game, then it's probably a CoI issue.

Moreover, how can we verify a statement like "it is not known"? -- Smjg (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== Removed claim that Windows 7 "may" rig the game so that a "best guess" never lands on a mine. The cited "source" was some blogger whose research involved playing a few games of Minesweeper and who probably edited the article himself. Also, the statement is false, as I can attest and as anyone with a copy of Windows 7 can empirically, if tediously, verify for themselves. JudahH (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some details about the original release

Minesweeper dates back to 1990, not 1989. The first Microsoft Entertainment Pack for Windows was released in September 1990.

Curt Johnson originally wrote the game for OS/2, it was finished in May 1990. Robert Donner then ported or rather rewrote it for Windows 3. The name of the game at this state of things was Mine (PM Mine resp. WinMine).

It is not strictly true that it was first released in the WEP. Like most of the WEP games, earlier versions were circulated as freeware. However, the WEP release was the first to bear the name Minesweeper, and the first that had the characteristic icon.—Graf Bobby (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Colors of numbers

In Windows 95/98/Me, the number/color sequence was:

1=blue 2=green 3=red 4=dark blue 5=dark red 6=teal 7=purple 8=black

In Windows XP, 7 is black and 8 is gray.

How about in Windows Vista and 7?? Is it still the same?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope - 7 and 8 are both red, like 3. Bluebird207 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Prato fiorito?

Should we mention Prato fiorito, which is the Italian flower version of Minesweeper? It has some significance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.179.16 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 Remake

Is it worth mentioning the Windows Phone 7 remake of Minesweeper here? Given that it actually added new gameplay elements and levelling as such, I would consider it fairly worthwhile. That said, I'm not good at writing for Wikipedia, so would someone mind writing it up? BTech ^United 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why remove the Windows 8 Screenshots?

I think the Windows 8 Screenshots should be added back to the article. These are, after all, the latest version of Microsoft Minesweeper. The fact that you have to download it separately through the Windows Store, rather than it being included by default seems a bit irrelevant. It's like saying that The Windows 7 screenshot should be removed because the software will not run on XP.

It's clear that Microsoft view it this way from the description on the Windows Store page: "Play the classic puzzle game that has been a part of Windows for more than 20 years, now re-imagined for Windows 8. Featuring adjustable difficulty, classic Minesweeper gameplay, and a brand new Adventure mode, Microsoft Minesweeper is better than ever." http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-gb/app/microsoft-minesweeper/45ac18d7-e742-494f-a1b1-009aa412a179

GoddersUK (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The Minesweeper in the Windows Store is the latest version of the same game, and the screenshot should show the latest version. I also think the name of the article needs to be changed to fit this. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Windows component. Since Minesweeper is not included in Windows 8, it's obviously no longer a Windows component in that version. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, this article also talks about the Entertainment Pack component, the MSN Messenger component, and yes, even the Windows Store app. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I agree with performing these changes, including renaming the article - but this should be done for every such article for consistency. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2013 (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. 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: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Minesweeper (Windows) → Microsoft Minesweeper – This is the official name of the latest version of the game. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Name change reflects what is already covered in the article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 11:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The developer's name is often included to differentiate a product, but is not part of its actual name. It is commonly called the "Nintendo Wii", for example, but the article is under Wii. Knight of Truth (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • How about Minesweeper (Microsoft)? - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I would prefer that; it matches e.g. Messenger Mobile (Microsoft). (Though I don't know why that article needs the disambiguation.) Knight of Truth (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Oppose (as nominator) the Minesweeper (Microsoft) variant - the entire move would become essentially pointless. Also note the naming of the Microsoft Office series of articles, for example. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Use of the name "Microsoft Word", etc. is far more common than "Microsoft Minesweeper", especially because "Minesweeper" is a generic name. I don't think that's a good comparison. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
          • The reason for this move request in the first place is that the official name has changed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
            • The article title should be the common name, which is not necessarily the official name. Do you have evidence to support that the game is commonly referred to as "Microsoft Minesweeper"? Speculation that such usage may become common in the future would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Are you seriously trying to say that "Minesweeper (Microsoft)" is more of a common name than "Microsoft Minesweeper"? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                • "(Microsoft)" is a disambiguation, because the common name also applies to other topics. This is also indicated by the italics in the current "Minesweeper (Windows)" title. Knight of Truth (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Again, how is this fundamentally different from the current name, which also uses disambiguation? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • I would not be opposed to leaving the name as-is, but I think a move to Minesweeeper (Microsoft) would make sense given that it is no longer sold as an integral part of Windows. Knight of Truth (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • In any case, what you are suggesting is a clear violation of policy, specifically WP:NATURAL: "If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name." Note that first part... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • That is a good point. I do suppose "Microsoft Windows" is a more natural disambiguation. I would support the move, then. Knight of Truth (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • Since you now support the move, I would ask that you cross out and replace your stated position above to make it easier for the closing administrator to determine consensus. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical. bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I have changed my position to a support on account of natural disambiguation, see above discussion. Knight of Truth (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• oppose common name is minesweeper, the disambiguation by parenthesis is simply a consequence of that. I can't really state that I find the Microsoft addition to be a natural diambiguator.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read WP:NATURAL? It's clear from there that whether you find or don't find the proposed name to be natural disambiguation is of little importance since natural disambiguation should always be attempted first. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. There's no reason to be snarky. My argument still applies even in the context of wp:natural because I'm not convinced that "Microsoft" is a natural disamiguator in this case. Conduct a simple google book search comparing Microsoft minesweeper and "Microsoft minesweeper". The results are so drastically different that I would almost place the suggested title into the category of obscure. Other Microsoft software are often associated with the company rather naturally, I don't see that as the case here. At least I don't believe the argument has been made successfully up to this point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • As the move proposal notes, "Microsoft Minesweeper" is now the official name of the game. While the common name is preferred over the official name, natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. "Microsoft Minesweeper" disambiguates this version of Minesweeper from other games of the same type without requiring parentheses, does it not? Knight of Truth (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The official name is irrelevant. It's reliable source usage is minimal. I remain of the opinion that you can't call it natural disambiguation if reliable source material does not use it. Two news article[1] and 56 book hits[2] does not a good title make.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:OFFICIAL notes: "Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities..." Now I would agree with you that a common name is preferable. However, granted that A) the common name requires parenthetical disambiguation, B) the official name has natural disambiguation and C) the official title should be considered a candidate, it seems readily apparent that the naturally disambiguating official title best fits established policy. Unless, of course, you have an alternative name that is more commonly used but also naturally disambiguates. Knight of Truth (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Very selective in your use of WP:OFFICIAL. You negelcted to mention that "should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". You dont have anywhere close to that in this case. WP:NATURAL doesn't supersed WP:COMMONNAME, and the common name is clearly in line with the current title or potentially Minesweeper (Microsoft)--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Please don't imply bad faith on my part; I'm making use of my own understanding of policy. That aside, WP:NATURAL does supersede WP:COMMONNAME. The common name tells us the preferred title, and we must deviate from the preferred title for the sake of disambiguation. WP:NATURAL tells us that such disambiguation should be natural if possible: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." WP:NATURAL does caution against the use of obscure names for this purpose, but do you think the official name is obscure? A quick Google search shows that the name is used on a variety of websites, including ones specifically about video games. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Requested move (again)

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. 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: no consensus; no discussion in 37 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Minesweeper → Minesweeper (Windows) – Or technically, a split This article started as, and should remain, an article about the Minesweeper application that was bundled with Windows prior to 8. The new Windows 8/RT Minesweeper is not a component of Windows, hence I consider it a distinct product that should at least be mentioned in this article (but in more of a "On Windows 8, Minesweeper and other pre-loaded games were removed in favor of games available as Windows Store apps." I actually found a few sources that could actually be used to create a separate article for the Windows 8 version. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 05:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC) ViperSnake151  Talk  00:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – No compelling reason to reverse the recent consensus of the earlier move request above. Windows Entertainment Pack wasn't bundled with Windows either. Whether the game is bundled with Windows or sold as an add-on which runs under Windows isn't a point so significant that it merits splitting articles. This article isn't so long that the Windows 8 version can't be discussed in a section here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: It would be extremely confusing to have this article continue to be based on old versions of Windows. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I acknowledge that "Minesweeper" and "Microsoft Minesweeper" are different things, despite the suggestive naming. This article mostly dedicates itself to Minesweeper the Windows component. There is so little about Microsoft Minesweeper that I am asking myself: Why does it have its own infobox? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Did a userspace draft of an article devoted specifically to the Windows 8 version). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to suggest merging that into the existing article. This is perhaps the third version of the Minesweeper game distributed by Microsoft, the second version being for Vista/7, and also developed by a different outside developer. We didn't get a separate article for the Vista/7 game. Whether it's bundled or not is not a significant point—that's just a marketing decision. Is Internet Explorer a different product when it's not bundled in the operating system? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No. Internet Explorer has always been an "OS component" according to Microsoft, no matter how it is distributed. And also, you still seem to be asserting that they are both the same product. They are not. The 2nd version doesn't get its own article just because there's nothing separately notable about it, and due to its ties to the old Windows XP version. The new one is a completely separate product and should be treated as such. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

      Well then, I would argue that the Minesweeper game has never been an "OS component", no matter how it is distributed. Are you arguing that the version developed by Oberon Games was essentially the same product as the earlier XP game, but now the Arkadium version is so completely different as to be nearly unrecognizable to players of the earlier game, with radically changed or different rules of play? Did Oberon just tweak Johnson and Donner's code a bit, rather than redevelop the game from scratch? I see, I assume that "Classic" mode is essentially the same game, but the new version adds two new modes. Well, maybe that justifies a new article, but I don't see why the two new modes can't be described in new sections of the existing article. Is Microsoft still distributing the Vista/7 version in parallel with the new version, if so that would indicate that they are sufficiently different to justify a new article. If they replaced the Vista/7 version with the new version, then that implies it's just a glorified upgrade of the old product. If you can expand your userspace stub to about triple its current length or more, that might justify a breakout to a sub-article, with just an overview remaining in the current article (an overview that's about the length of your current stub). Wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

      • I know one big difference between the old and "new" Minesweeper; it uses Windows Runtime code, and that effectively means it was re-written from scratch. And besides, the Solitaire (Windows) article does not count its, ahem, updated Windows 8 version which is clearly a continuation of the old Solitaire and not a completely different product (/sarcasm) as being a separate game and unrelated to the old Windows solitaire. And none of the old games are included with Windows 8. At all. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the userspace draft should never occupy "Microsoft Minesweeper" whatever happens to this article, since the game bundled with windows since 3.1 is the most likely one. Further, as part of the MS Entertainment Pack and MS OS/2, the "Windows" moniker is incorrect, since the EP isn't part of Windows, and OS/2 isn't Windows. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I am afraid I am striking out your oppose because it is about an irrelevant subject instead of this rename discussion. In other words, please stick to the "whatever happens to this article" part. (Your right cast another opinion about the main subject is reserved.) Once we decided whether a rename is going to occur or not, our dear ViperSnake151 will have to obtain consensus or exhibit significant notability to replace anything, because as it stands, his point of view disputed. Still, no need to hurry into anything. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whether this user's opinion "is about an irrelevant subject instead of this rename discussion" or not (and it definitely isn't), you may not alter another user's talk page comment in such a way! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Eh... While WP:TPO does kinda forbid such behavior ("Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request"! Herp derp!), nothing's terribly bad in having a little bit of fun from time to time... Besides, it was done to a mere IP editor - not like its opinion actually matters... ;-) 173.68.110.16 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Dogmatic, you should learn the order of application of the rules before trying to enforce them. If you look around in Wikipedia well, you will see that not only we strike out comments here but also delete them if they are spam, abusive, etc. That's because not spamming takes precedence over WP:TPO. That comment, however, is not allowed in the first place, per WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CONSENSUS because it is not a consensus-making comment. WP:TPO is a guideline written to help maintain a healthy discussion and does not apply to disruptive comments like that. So, do us all a favor, try to learn the precedence before trying to enforce the rules and don't template the regulars.

That said, that guest editor is as good as any registered editor and his/her right to add a relevant opinion is still reserved.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPO takes precedence over your opinion in this case, particularly since it is the closing administrator who should decide which opinions are relevant, so I have reverted again. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not read my opinion. You have read part of my opinion and interpreted that to mean that you can just strike it out. That is wrong. I have stated in my opinion that this program originated from OS/2 and is therefore Windows is inappropriate, and it is not just a Windows component, since the Entertainment Pack is not Windows. Furthermore, this move is also to facilitate the move of a userspace draft into articlespace to occupy the current pagename, so is entirely relevant to this discussion, since it is part of the nominator's subsequent comments. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. As a matter of fact, I have! And I understood that much. That's why I still say your comment is totally irrelevant because you seem completely oblivious to the fact that any editor (ViperSnake or otherwise) still has full freedom of action to boldy develop contents, so far as WP:V, WP:DUE and WP:N allow; this discussion does not (and cannot) put in place any restriction, actual or consensual, on future developments. In other words, if you say "keep current name because..." the community might agree, but your current vote of "keep status quo, therefore keep current name" is neither the subject of this discussion nor has force.

Of course, it is possible that you did consider this but has thought that a half-sentence mention of another minesweeper-class game included wit Microsoft Entertainment Pack has so much due weight that can alter the definition of the main subject in this article. In that case, please be my guest! I just dismissed this course of action per WP:AGF. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize you're not talking to me in this case, but I'd just like to point out that thinking that "a half-sentence mention of another minesweeper-class game included wit [sic] Microsoft Entertainment Pack has so much due weight that [sic] can alter the definition of the main subject in this article" is very much a valid opinion. The mere fact that there is not much discussion of a certain subject on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that that subject is less notable than any other. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The argument is sound but not valid because again if it is so notable, once again this discussion cannot put in place any restriction, actual or consensual, on its development, so far as WP:V, WP:DUE and WP:N allow. If it isn't, then it has no force to alter the definition of the main subject. In other words, regardless of whatever the answer, 76.65.128.222's "keep status quo, therefore keep current name" is neither the subject of this discussion nor has force. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is not necessarily fact. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and per WP:COMMONNAME also per WP:CLIQUE and WP:VOTESTACKING Seriously, I completely agree with nominator and I know from a personal experience (yes, yes, it is irrelevant here) that most people address this game simply as "Minesweeper", without using the name of the company, and brief Google search also suggests the same (various websites call it as "Minesweeper", for example this NYTimes editorial, although they do not specifically mention the particular version). 173.68.110.16 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The article is mostly about the version of the Minesweeper game that was included in Windows (and OS/2, apparently) which was called simply 'Minesweeper'. When a new version of a game comes out, it is common practice to add a section about that game, which this article does. Alternately a new article could be spun off, but that doesn't seem necessary. It's giving to much weight to a recent event to retroactively rename the whole article. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I personally believe the suggested location is the most appropriate (see my comment in the last requested move). However, I am going to oppose because I believe the last requested move, completed but two months ago, was conducted and concluded fairly. I don't like seeing requested moves presented so quickly after a move has been concluded, in fact I think it would have been appropriate for this request to have been speedily closed, but that's just me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. That's not just you. Please see WP:NOTAGAIN. Apparently, many people like you just vote against change, merely because it is "repeated nominations". But the fact is: consensus can change and will probably change. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• From that exact same page: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• This page is not frivolously nominated for deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your opinion is not necessarily fact. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a process for challenging requested moves that are felt to be incorrect. That was not employed, thus its fair to say the name change was accepted. WP:NOTAGAIN applies when a reasonable amount of time has past to reconsider an issue, not two months. Still Strongly Oppose a move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it is not useful to make a separate article for a game which is essentially the same. I think it is natural and beneficial to research to group the various versions of Minesweeper for Windows in the same article. Where there is a significant difference between versions, it is appropriate to give it its own section. Because the latest version is called Microsoft Minesweeper and that name requires no disambiguation (see previous discussion), I think it's the most sensible choice for the combined article on the three versions. Are you proposing an article split? If so, make that a separate proposal and let's discuss that before we discuss what this one should be called. (Also, I'd like to thank user:Dogmaticeclectic for notifying me of the discussion. :) ) Knight of Truth (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm changing how this proposal is presented in preparation for the introduction of outside editors into the discussion. Primarily, I am no longer branding it as a "move", but as a split (although, to execute the split in the way I envisioned it, it would technically require a move). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know who closed the last discussion but that closure is obviously against policy. First, the votes counts are too close to be considered a consensus. Relist or "no consensus" closure was in order. Second, you guys invent a name and called it "natural disambiguation"? Heavens helps us! The game is not even developed by Microsoft. Calling it "Microsoft Minesweeper" is like renaming OS X to Microsoft OS X with natural disambiguation as the excuse. (Mac fans would murder you, of course.) "Oberon Minesweeper" or "Windows Minesweeper" was more appropriate. Fleet Command (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You've just shattered WP:AGF completely on my part with regards to you: "I don't know who closed the last discussion" - it is explicitly stated right above who did! Given this, it is also clear to me that your statement that "that closure is obviously against policy" violates WP:NPA. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I count three in favor and one opposed, with the last remaining opposition not having responded for 14 days before the close. The close was done by someone not involved in the discussion. Multiple options were discussed, and the three in favor settled on one. It wasn't unanimous, but as far as I can see, the move discussion and the move decision were pretty much by the book. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Admins are explicitly told not to treat the disputes that way. Wikipedia is not governed by straw polling. First, they should check policy. For example, WP:TITLE says the title is determined by reliable sources and no reliable source says the title is "Microsoft Minesweeper". That means even in a 1 million to 1 case, the case should have been thrown to dumpster. Second, even if the policy register no objections, the consensus takes precedence, not vote count. Three to one or three to two do not constitute consensus. AfDs are recurrently closed as no consensus when such a situation happens. Finally, even if Wikipedia was a vote count, three to two vote result is called a minority vote and is not valid. And by the way, your count is wrong: There are two opposes and three supports. Fleet Command (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • There's only one oppose vote; the second oppose vote is by the nominator to an alternative suggestion. (I trust the closing admin read the discussion to some extent instead of just counting the bolded text.) That aside, "Microsoft Minesweeper" was identified as the official title in the discussion. This was not disputed because it was supported by a cursory search, several websites mention that as the name of the new version. Policy was discussed extensively and clearly, including quotes. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • A cursory search also shows aliens visit the Earth very often and abduct people! Look, I am not going to have a WP:GOOGLETEST argument; I am not going to discuss with you if you continue to misrepresent my sentences or deny the antecedents and pretend they don't exist. You keep your oppose, I'll keep my support. And if you believe a closing admin ignore my comments, or that when the article is split, you can do anything about it, I respect your belief, though I might not entirely agree with it. Fleet Command (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to close this, but I really don't think the arguments about different developers and an adventure mode merit a completely new article. The nom's presented sources are a good start in support of a move, but I do not think they are substantial enough for forking these two. It seems much more natural to create a separate section on this iteration within a single article. Other games with substantially similar iterations like Pong, Tetris, and Donkey Kong (video game) essentially do the same thing. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Procedural comment

– The originator of this requested move removed the {{requested move/dated}} tag with this 15 August 2013 edit which 'rebranded it as a split', and then initiated a Request for Comment, which follows. At 22:58, 14 September 2013 a bot removed the expired RFC template. After an editor joined the stale discussion on Sept. 30, another editor restored the requested move tag. I'm adjusting the format for proper bot pickup, and asking an admin to formally close this stale combined RM and RfC. Note also that there has been a {{split}} tag on the article since August. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Section break, start RFC

Should the Microsoft Minesweeper game distributed through the Windows Store for Windows 8 be considered distinct from the Minesweeper game that was previously bundled with Windows, resulting in this page exclusively discussing the previous incarnation? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• No It doesn't really matter if it is or not, it still wouldn't get this title, which is what you're proposing to do over several sections of this talk page. As the Minesweeper originating from OS/2 going into the Entertainment Pack for 3.0, and then being bundled with 3.1, is not just a Windows component because OS/2 is not Windows and the EP is not components, the argued for name for which this RfC is a subsection, is invalid. OS/2 is not Windows and the covered Entertainment Pack is not a component of Windows, which makes "Minesweeper (Windows)", your preferred displacement name, invalid. Minesweeper (Microsoft) might be viable, but then "Microsoft Minesweeper" would redirect to it. If you wanted a separate article, you could always call it Minesweeper (Windows Store). But what's the point? Minesweeper originated in OS/2 and clearly is not a Windows component there. As it became unbundled it was pushed to the Windows Store, so why would unbundling affect this? The Entertainment Pack isn't a component of Windows either. Are you saying we should split off both Entertainment Pack and OS/2 into separate articles? If you did that you'd need an overview article for OS/2, WEP, bundled 3.x, 9x, NT5, 64bit, Windows Store, which would all become separate articles, since you're splitting such a thin hair with Windows Store, the other hairs are just as large, if not larger (ie. OS/2) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong no: It is highly unlikely that articles for individual Minesweeper versions published by Microsoft would be separately deemed to satisfy WP:N if they were to be nominated for deletion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes: Reliable sources say they are developed by different developers (Oberon vs. Arkadium) and are under different licenses (Windows license vs. Freeware), even run on different platforms (x86 vs. x86 and ARM). Even their nature differs. The only thing that is similar is their genre. (Minesweeping game). Even the WEP version should also be regarded a distinct thing. Now, should they have separate articles? That is a different question, which WP:N answers. I think not all of them even deserve an infobox, let alone article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes: Reverse duck test: If doesn't sound like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck, it probably isn't a duck. So, if it isn't made by the same people, doesn't look like the original game and even doesn't have the same name; yes, it's different. And before you jump on me for it, Microsoft Office, Open Office, Star Office, etc. all have Office in their names. Not the same things either. Fleet Command (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. The game is the same in essence, and a continuity from one version to the next as the Minesweeper for Microsoft Windows exists. Given that continuity, I think it's more sensible to have one article that shows progression through those iterations, than separate articles. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. File:Microsoft Minesweeper by Arkadium.jpg tells me all I need to know regarding this: they are essentially the same game. If the articles are split, which I am not in favor of, then they would need to be named (Microsoft) Minesweeper (Windows 8) and Minesweeper (pre-Windows 8) to avoid ambiguity. Are people wanting a separate article for the new product so that they can promote it? – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. The minutiae of differences are not compelling when the underlying concept of the game is largely the same. Per KoT, it's more appropriate to show how the game has evolved through subsections in the article, and it is easy to create redirects to these sections if folks are looking for the particular game. I do not think current sources support an independent article on the new version. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Codename Lisa: So the OS/2 version uses a Windows license? And the DEC Alpha is an x86 platform? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's not count things too strictly; I think what Codename Lisa is trying to say is that how they are made and distributed are completely different. i.e. the "original" one was distributed as a component of Windows, the new one is pretty much an add-on and built in a completely new way. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, so OS/2 is part of Windows? And when you bought the Windows Entertainment Pack, you were buying the complete Windows 3.0 system? How isn't the EP an addition in the same way as the Windows Store version is?-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry to interrupt your trolling, but you see the section titled discussion? It is there so you don't assault other people's comments.

And ViperSnake151, you have been here a while; by now, you should be able to tell trolling from genuine edits when you see it. Don't feed the trolls. You should have not replied it and let it hang. No person of right mind takes this comment seriously. Fleet Command (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Another personal attack? Well, I guess that warning I just left at your user talk page can pull double duty... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whoops, sorry about that. But yeah, the duck argument does work here; by my opinion, the Vista/7 Minesweeper is just as much of an update as WordPad on Windows 7; it still quacks like a duck, but it just has more feathers glued to it. Windows Store!Minesweeper looks like a duck but quacks in a different language. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• You're right but your metaphor is off. Saying it "quacks in another language" is like saying "he speaks English in another language". Wrong, isn't it? In another language, it is neither quacking nor English. The metaphor you are looking for is: "It has a different bird call" or "the sound it makes is not quacking". In a related note, the metaphor is "duck test" not "certain genus of duck test". So, the Windows Store version is still a bird (even a water-landing bird) but not a duck. And by the way, it is based on Windows Runtime, not Windows Presentation Foundation. Fleet Command (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I meant that in reference to the Windows 7 version. Not the Windows Store!Minesweeper. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Citation needed for your claim that the Vista/7 version is based on WPF. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unless it's a wild goose you've got there. Multi-architecture — the old minesweeper also ran on multiple architectures (ie. DEC Alpha); multi-OS — I should think OS/2 would count; is only a component of Windows — well, I think OS/2 isn't a part of Windows, and neither the Entertainment Pack ; purchased separately — the Entertainment Pack was purchased separately. Clearly "Minesweeper (Windows)" only describes the Windows Store version, since the other Minesweeper ran on OS/2, so is an inappropriate name. "Minesweeper (Microsoft)" would work, but why a separate article for the rewrite? We regularly cover multiple versions of products in the same article, that have gone through complete rewrites, with new base code. If you look at other product articles on Wikipedia, redesigns don't usually get new articles, they just get covered as new versions of the same product name. Think of how many car articles we would have for each model, and cars have much greater coverage in the real world than Minesweeper does. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058: Hi. Your "essentially the same thing" is a misnomer for "they are of the same genre". Look at Diablo II and Dragon Age II and their screenshots: File:Diablo II characters.jpg and File:Dragon Age II protagonists.jpg. They are essentially the same things, developed by different developers. (Same genre, that is.) Again, we have Halo: Combat Evolved and Unreal II: The Awakening: Essentially the same things. You can't even tell which is which from their screenshots, unless there is a distinguishing element like Aida or Cortana in the shot. So, what? If I replace the screenshot with the screenshot of the adventure mode of the game, would your "No" became a "yes"? I reserve my guess. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  An article titled Microsoft Minesweeper adventure mode, which restricted itself to just discussion of that mode, with at most just a limited mention of the classic mode, might be viable. Such an article would not include that classic screenshot, it would just have a screenshot of the new mode. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, not really. We have a lot of policies against that. And besides, I don't think any editor is just yet ready to look stupid by doing that... or any other of your suggestions for what matters. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2013 (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.

Problem solved: Microsoft Minesweeper not mentioned at all

Hi.

The article had a problem: It was titled Microsoft Minesweeper but did not contain anything beyond that of sentence about a video game that is actually titled "Microsoft Minesweeper"! So, I created a section for it, added contents to it and added a screenshot.

I am surprised how the old rename request was ever granted when the article had nothing about "Microsoft Minesweeper".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice job! And yea, I am also surprised that old req passed... Or that people even bothered with such extremely minor thing.173.68.110.16 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, how you did it is a license violation; you copied my content in without attributing it to the userspace draft. To ensure the history is in there, I think we should split it, as consensus is building towards it in the discussion above. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you create your draft so that it can be eventually copied here? Isn't it why you introduced it here?

Alright, I'll just hop in and rewrite the copied section. You can request oversight then. (I can't. You can.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What I forsaw; moving the page back to Minesweeper (Windows), then calling a housekeeping delete on Microsoft Minesweeper to move my article in its place. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You don't need to. If you find one more coverage in reliable secondary sources, you'll have notability, so you can split the articles at discretion. Notability is a guideline that has strong community support, so a consensus of one, ten or even one hundred editors won't be enough to break it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, "Notability" is also a pretty ambiguous guideline, and different people tend to interpret (or value) it differently, including Wikipedia administrators. Just like the Wikipedia's civility guidelines (especially WP:PERSONAL) or anything else for that matter. And yes, a consensus is sometimes enough to "break" ANY of them. Stick around for a longer time, you'll see exactly what I mean ;-) 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not my assessment but we can safely just "agree to disagree" on that, as one of the essays put it. Nevertheless, at this time, there is no consensus against it, so WP:BOLD is in order. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Being bold does not mean circumventing an active discussion! Being bold means not being overly worried about invoking the "proper" procedures if you want to make a good-faith change. Once discussion is opened, it is highly inappropriate to make a change without consensus. In the absence of consensus, the article should keep the status quo ante bellum in regards to what was being discussed, if you'll pardon my Latin. :p Knight of Truth (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining status quo ante bellum but being bold does mean circumventing any past discussion that did not form a consensus in favor or against the nature of the bold action. The current discussion assumes the article will forever cover both games. Once this status changes, the consensus formed is automatically shattered. I'd like to make a point that a consensus cannot hinder progress and evolution that is Wikipedia's mission and is sanctioned by its core policies. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means, if we decide to split (which I am personally opposed to), it is worth thinking about the article titles again. Boldness means proceeding with a good-faith edit without arduously polling consensus, you can't "be bold" in the Wikipedia sense if you know the topic is controversial and no consensus exists. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Maximum number of mines in custom mode

The given formula, [(A − 1) × (B − 1)], is not correct, the number is slightly higher (Win7).

The difference seems to be exactly (112-(A-50/3)*(B-50/3))/(50/3), rounded up or down. ...is there any significance in the 50/3 or 112?? --androl (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)