Talk:Marco Polo (game)

Swimming Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming 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.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This page has been marked as needing a photograph.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sound localization#Sound localization by the human auditory system|sound localization]] The anchor (#Sound localization by the human auditory system) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Evolution of name?

I reverted an edit that suggested the name for this game evolved from Water Polo. The edit was made by User:Pattycap11, and it could be a very nice addition to the article if there was a source to attribute it to. Lizzius (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article gets a lot of edits from people repeating stories/etymologies they've heard. We have to be insistent on sources. SQGibbon (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I second the theory that the name may have come from "Water Polo" as the linked Dictionary survey even mentions "water polo" as one of the most commonly named pool games at the time. Unfortunately, though, I can find no reliable sources which echo this theory. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a source which denies the connection. The origins are still a mystery, but at least this theory is referenced now. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the bluff?

The text of "blind man's bluff" vs "blind man's buff" has changed a number of times recently, beginning with this guy who called buff a typo, then my reversion back to buff because it wasn't a typo, then this change to bluff, then my bringing consistency to bluff since there is a Wisegeek quote using "bluff", then there's this.

I don't care which version we use, but shouldn't we be consistent across the uses? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like one of those US vs UK spelling debates in mild disguise. Currently it appears that the article is using "bluff" in all three instances. The argument could be made that 'buff' is the more original or more correct variation, but since both are correct and bluff is used by this article's source, I'd like to see that consistency stick. Personally, I also think it sounds better, but that's me. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading an American children's book when I was a kid that referenced "blind man's buff". I don't think it's a crossing-the-pond issue. I think the more contemporary version is "bluff" perhaps as an artifact of misuse over time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it just brings to mind those articles where hapless but well-meaning readers say "fixed typo. it's aluminum, not aluminium, lol" and consistency tug-of-war (see also: rope war, tug war, war of tug) ensues, haha. Scoundr3l (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]