Talk:Botticelli (game)

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Games (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Confusing[edit]

You think you could make these directions are little more confusing? Good thing it's linked to the Berkeley site or no one would be able to figure it out -- even Harvard grads who have played the game.

Whoever wrote the above -- just criticizing isn't terribly helpful. Also, you could get an account and sign your comments... Auros 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could definitely learn something from the Berkeley write-up, if only to include a "basic summary" near the top of the article. And some example game dialogue would definitely be useful. I'll get onto this when I've got a little more time; this is definitely a game that more people should understand and play. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect, Section 2 -- error?[edit]

In Indirect, section 2 -- the parenthesized bit (If guesser was thinking of the chooser's person, then the guesser wins) makes no sense; if the chooser has answered "No" regarding the quality the guesser asked about, how could the guesser have been thinking about the chooser's choice? I guess one of them could be wrong, but that seems like an improbable situation. One imagines a chooser would pick, and a guesser would ask about, somebody they know a decent amount about. Auros 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stumping[edit]

Am I misreading something, or is the "stumping" variant the same as the base game, only using the term "stumping" instead of "direct/indirect"? --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only difference between the two is that stumping can be any trivia and indirect mode can't. Eatmark (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]

How old is this game?[edit]

Does anyone know what the earliest attested appearance of this game is? I've read that it was "popular in the 60s and 70s" and the earliest mention in the pop culture section is the 1960s, but is that the time when it was first created? Does anyone know where or who created it? Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite game[edit]

What's called the opposite version of the game? Where each person has a character in their foreheads (unknown for them) and each must guess their character. (Check "Inglorious Basterds" tavern scene). It would be nice if it was referenced in this article. (I know it as "Marie Antoinette" but I cannot verify the source). MaoGo (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Botticelli (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]