![]() | This template does not require a rating on XIV's content assessment scale. It is: of interest——to the: following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Theorems※
I removed existence of NE from the——list of theorems. There is already a sketch of the proof at Nash equilibrium and I don't think there is much more to be, "said." If there is enough to warrant an article, I'd be happy to add it back in. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)※
- Yeah, that's definitely on the border of game theory. Perhaps Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is closer. But even that isn't exactly game theory. --best, kevin ※※ 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)※
- I took it off, and also the Guess 2/3 of the average link, which is listed at List of games in game theory but at best maginally notable ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)※
Too long※
I'd argue that this template should be drastically shortened. Or deleted. It is an eyesore on most articles, and it should only be a short list useful for an overview, most articles could simply be in categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)※
- Any suggestions on how to shorten it, in particular on how to create a feasible inclusion guideline for future articles? ~ trialsanderrors 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)※
- For example, rm the "related topics" box, that should be in Game theory proper in context. Rm most articles in the "Games" box, only a few very representative ones should be there. Rm most equilibria too, leave a few to give the reader an idea.
- Simpler yet, make sure Category:Game theory has good categories, and then delete this template, and write a good overview at Game theory. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)※
- Navboxes serve a very different purpose than categories. They're quick referral directories while categories are comprehensive (or should be). I'm in favor of not listing every marginal game/solution concept, but I want to know on what grounds we should include or exclude any individual item. ~ trialsanderrors 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)※
- Well, keeping the several most representative items only could be good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)※
- OK, ready to weed out? ~ trialsanderrors 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)※
- Sure I am .... :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)※
- Navboxes serve a very different purpose than categories. They're quick referral directories while categories are comprehensive (or should be). I'm in favor of not listing every marginal game/solution concept, but I want to know on what grounds we should include or exclude any individual item. ~ trialsanderrors 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)※
Dynamic game balancing※
Someone ought to look at adding dynamic game balancing to the template. I don't even know if the article is valid or not, but if it is, it needs to be added since it's almost an orphan right now. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)※
- That's more of a computer game thing, so I pointed that project at the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)※
Pareto efficiency※
Pareto efficiency is listed as a solution concept. I guess that's because it's sometimes used as part of equilibrium refinement? Anyway, I'm thinking to remove it, since it's not really a solution concept (unless I'm missing something), and the Pareto efficiency article isn't currently helpful in providing context. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)※
Signaling game listed twice※
I removed the second link for it. --Rajah (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)※
Game Theorists※
Perhaps we should link to articles on some of the established game theorists - Nash, von Neumann, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by, 129.67.160.200 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)※
Monty Hall problem※
Can we include the the Monty Hall problem or is the format incorrect for "game theory" since there is only one player? JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)※
Bargaining problem vs. Nash bargaining game※
Nash bargaining game, listed here under "games", links to a redirect to bargaining problem, which we list here under "classes of games". Do these really differ such that we need separate entries, and if not, which should we keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMog (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)※
n-player games※
Repeated games are mentioned on the template—shouldn't n-player games also be included? —Perceval 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)※
Separate abstract strategy games from others※
I am not sure whether abstract strategy games belong here at all (or under something like combinatorial game theory somehow), but I think it is not at all helpful that they are all mixed up with other games. Does anybody want to subdivide this part of the box? PJTraill (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)※