This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
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.
Duja09:51, 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.
Abtract08:38, 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.
Duja10:20, 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.
200510:40, 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.
Duja10:47, 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.
200511:06, 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.
Duja12:38, 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.
200518:13, 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".
Duja11:00, 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.
200511:06, 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).
Duja12:38, 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.
Abtract16:18, 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.
Abtract17:26, 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.
Duja08:41, 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.
200519:51, 27 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).
Duja08:41, 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".
Duja08:41, 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.
Abtract10:20, 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.
Duja10:53, 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.
Cambion12:41, 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.
Abtract13:17, 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.
Cambion13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)reply