Template talk:Game theory

	This template is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
NA	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Theorems[edit]

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)[reply]

Arrow's Theorem?[edit]

I think the linkage between the AT and game theory is a bit tenuous, and especially there is nothing in the AT article that creates that linkage. So I'm not sure if we should leave it in, even though the list of theorems is pretty short as it is. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [kzollman][talk] 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Too long[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 or 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)[reply]

Well, keeping the several most representative items only could be good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ready to weed out? ~ trialsanderrors 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am .... :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic game balancing[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pareto efficiency[edit]

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)[reply]

Signaling game listed twice[edit]

I removed the second link for it. --Rajah (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Theorists[edit]

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)[reply]

Monty Hall problem[edit]

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)[reply]

Bargaining problem vs. Nash bargaining game[edit]

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)[reply]

n-player games[edit]

Repeated games are mentioned on the template—shouldn't n-player games also be included? —Perceval 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate abstract strategy games from others[edit]

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)[reply]