Talk:Mao (card game)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Clarification on rules

I have never played this game but, last night, tried to teach myself based on this article. Let me ask a few things that were not clear that came up in the game.

A new section for the chairman?:

1. It appears that there only 1 person who knows the "current" rules at the start of the game. Do we call this person "the Chairman"? (Assuming not Dutch rules.) Is the chairman, therefore, the final authority on the rules and the one most likely to deal the "bad call"?

 Answer: The person that wins a round makes a rule and keeps it secret. So nobody knows all the rule which is the fun of the game.

2. It sounded like the winner becomes the dealer and adds a rule. Does he, therefore, become the chairman?

Updated Penalties section:

3. Is it only the chairman who deals penalty cards or can any player do it?

3A. If only the chairman does the enforcing, should the chairman fails to enforce a penalty but some other player knows that it should be enforced, is there a penalty to the chairman? Cavebear42 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should add that sometimes the eights and sixes have rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChappJack (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Locked out with grammar mistakes

There are some places where the author used their instead of his or her and I would like to make a minor edit but can't.

This is the "singular they", it's not a grammatical mistake. --McGeddon (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some places where the author used "his or her" instead of "their" and I would like to make a minor edit but can't.

Changed 'his or her' to 'their'. Bkatcher (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Facts

There are too many on this page. Many of the rules listed here are considered "folk versions" of the game. Therefore, the so-called "book versions" won't ever be found ! It is time to clean up this page. Krenakarore (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many rules

By the very nature of the game, there are countless rule variants. We cannot and should not endeavor to list them all--see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. First, please, don't add more variant house rules. Second, we need to go in and clean up this mess. I'm not entirely certain how to begin that project, although the first place to start will be the sources--any rule not mentioned in a reliable source will be removed; and then we'll see what's left. Anyone else is welcome to start this, or I'll do it when I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. It might be easiest (and produce a more readable article) just to pick one prominently documented variant as an example, explain that variant in full, and then say "other variants exist with different penalties". I don't think we gain that much by piling together disparate rules from assorted sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Rules?

Why are the rules listed if the object of the game is to learn the rule "The game forbids its players from explaining the rules, and new players are often told only "the only rule you may be told is this one."" WTF!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.236.181 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Because we are compiling an encyclopaedia, and are thus not concerned with upholding the internal rules of anything we catalogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.177.123 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Due to the very nature of the game, the intrinsic rules and values of the game should and indeed must be respected. I must disagree with the preceding comment. Because the responsibility of compiling an encyclopedia is indeed great, it is increasingly more important to recognize the purpose and primary rule of the game. Furthermore, as earlier stated in this article, other than the dealer's customary "There are many rules in Mao, but perhaps the first and most important rule in Mao is there is no Mao in Mao." The primary rule is to not tell rules. Thus, I must protest the added Rules section, and respectfully demand that it be removed as soon as possible. Most insistently, MorgothXVI — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorgothXVI (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This same argument has gone on in magic trick articles, such as Zig Zag Girl where the secret behind the trick is revealed. The consensus is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not beholden to outside standards. We're bound by the rules of Wikipedia, not by the rules of a card game.Czolgolz (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As well as secretive societies such as the Freemasons.Cavebear42 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

History: Earliest reference

An Arthur Machen short story written in 1899 called The White People contains what may be the earliest reference to a game called "Mao".[8]

I may have an older reference here: The Oxford English Dictionary has the following subentry under "living, noun". This would date it to 1570 but may be a different game entirely. It is item 6 on the following link. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109357

Since I do not know Mao, I am not sure.

8tavian (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The line about it being "a term in the game of Maw"? ("If you turne vp the ace of hartes, and thereby make either partie aboue xxvj, the contrary part must haue liuings; but if the contrary parte bee xxv, by meanes whereof liuings sets them out, then is he who turned vp the ace of hartes to make for the set.") "Maw" seems to be a variant name for the card game Forty-fives. --McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirming after further research that this is indeed referencing the game Forty-fives and not Mao. The Tallest Tower (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I heard that this game origins in China, and was a reaction to the fear to speak out clearly about what the government says, but to nevertheless spread the information. But that is something that I believe to remember from hearsay roughly 15 years ago. I'd love to hear if someone has information on this topic or if my memory (or the hearsay of it) is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A62:1542:AD01:6D9:F5FF:FEF5:72D5 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

". There should be 52 cards per player in the game. (Example: 4 players equals 4 decks of cards including the jokers.)"

52 does not include jokers. 54? --138.25.47.215 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this was part of someone deciding to rewrite the rules section with no sources, including their own house rules and an advert for a Facebook group, with an HTML summary of "KEEP IT SIMPLE. PEOPLE WILL NOT WANT TO READ YOUR ENTIRE "THESIS" ON MAO."

I've reverted it to the sourced version which doesn't have the 52/54 typo. --McGeddon (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rounds

In standard Oxford rules, apart from starting with 5 cards (which is not listed as an option), the main difference is that the game is played without rounds or a particular chairman/dealer. Play continues when someone goes out, and they may deal themselves back in with "Introducing new rule". This rule is not revealed (except by penalising). 2620:104:4007:64:96E:1CD0:D05C:B55C (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mao (card game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000608205418/http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bajuk/mao.html to http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bajuk/mao.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Reference #17 is an Amazon link for a self-published 25-page ebook, which does not seem appropriate. 86.185.141.230 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 22:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:IVORK. Your edit also removed the mu.org source for reversing on a 2, I don't know if that was intentional. --86.185.141.230 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, it wasn't intentional but I will say articles rarely need more than 3 references per line. It's only generally if it's a important part that may have some ambiguity to it. And if one source covers it all, there is no need to add more. I was considering removing some of the repeated references, but I know little of the actual game so am probably not the best person for it.

Thanks for letting me know anyway — IVORK _Discuss 09:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@IVORK: No other source on that line mentions the "sometimes two" rule, though (or even claims to, given that all the footnotes are earlier in the paragraph). The "sometimes two" rule should have a verifiable source so that the reader can confirm for themselves where it came from, that it wasn't made up by a Wikipedia editor. --86.137.158.153 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2019

change "In most cases where a penalty is called" to "In most cases when a penalty is called" 73.231.39.177 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Change "Some variants require the player to announce when having only one card left in their hand" to "Some variants require the player to announce when they have only one card left in their hand" 73.231.39.177 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done; Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Replace the first paragfraph in "Adding Rules" section with the following text. It ommits the used source, TV Tropes, because it is not reliable source of information for references and external links per section 12 of WP:ELNO and WP:RSP.

In many variants an additional rule is silently and secretly added to the game with each round. It is customary for a player (often the winner of the previous round, sometimes the next person to deal) to add one new rule to the game. In a game with only one round, players who have gotten rid of all their cards may make a rule for those still in the game. Sometimes a new rule is explained to one other player (sometimes the dealer, sometimes a runner-up winner of the round), both to ensure consistency of the rule and consistency of its enforcement. Any new rules are allowed, but it must not be biased towards a player.

2603:7000:1F00:6B91:EDB1:495F:D4EB:8C6F (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 01:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

This paragraph contradicts itself:

There are many variants of Mao in existence. While beginners sometimes assume that the dealer (sometimes called the "Chairman", the "Mao" or the "Grand Master") and other experienced players are simply making up possibly inconsistent rules (as in the games Mornington Crescent or Fizbin), the rules of Mao are consistent within each game and can be followed correctly.

The rules can't be "consistent" if "many variants" exist. There's even a whole section in this article that explains how rules can be added. 2600:8800:80:78:5563:74B9:AC0D:8D72 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation for a claim

Part of this article claims that 'Mao's name and rules are a reference to Chairman Mao Zedong's rule over China. The rules not being explained are an allusion to the laws in China at the time being in constant flux, leading to many people being arrested for laws they did not know were in place.' No citation is given for this claim, however, leaving me wondering whether it's true and what the source is. Either it should be removed or a citation should be given. 2A00:23C7:8E8E:7B01:21EA:918:590A:8A77 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)