>FRANK: >Maybe a third category would help? Something like: >Where Stash = a set of 15 pyramids, 5 of each size >"Standard Stash" -- playable with any stash. Color irrelevant, opacity >irrelevant. >"Treehouse Set" -- playable with a Treehouse set. >"Special Stash" -- playable with <=15 pyramids but requires additional >specifications. Not bad... But I don't know that we have total control over Category definitions. If we do/could, then I'd be more inclined to start over, call a stash a stash, and align with the general argument made by James. First, kill "Single stash " and "Treehouse set" altogether--I think we've proved that they are non-meaningful distinctions. They could become "static" pages by basically editing them--to provide link to the new Categories below--and then re-categorizing every game that tries to be picked up by them. Voila! If no games reference the Category, then no listing appears on it, and only the "preamble" of links to the new Categories is visible. Then, create the following meaningful categories, all of which would be found by a search on "single stash" or "treehouse": (Using your "Stash = 15 pieces made up of 5 full nests/trees)" * Single random stash (SRS) - May be played with one stash of any combination of five transparent or opaque stacks and common objects. * Single transparent stash (STS) - Can be played with one transparent stash and common objects; seeing through all of the pieces is critical. * Single opaque stash (SOS) - Can be played with one opaque stash and common objects; *not* seeing through any of the pieces is critical. * Single Treehouse stash (STHS) - Can be played with one stash of four different colored stacks, an opaque stack, and common objects. * Martian Coasters (MCs) - Requires a set of Martian Coasters and common objects. In short, the current Categorization scheme is a result of simply slapping a Category into the wiki which matched the new, Mark II product name. As a short-hand for "four colors of stacks and an opaque stack," however, it could regain some utility. Yes, this means its namesake only qualifies as an STHS game because Treehouse can be played with any single random stack! Further, those new categories would make for good offshoots for other meaningful categories: * random stash per player (RSP) - Stash defined as above, one per player. * transparent stash per player (TSP) - Stash defined as above, one per player. * opaque stash per player (OSP) - Stash defined as above, one per player. * Treehouse stash per player (THSP) - Stash defined as above, one per player. * Dual Martian Coasters (DMCs) - Requires two sets of Martian Coasters and common objects. * 5-way Martian Coasters (MCs+) - As MCs above, plus the Black Gift Coaster. * 10-way Martian Coasters (DMC+) - As MCs above, plus two Black Gift Coasters. OK, maybe I'm going off the deep end, but the general idea is to make it really easy for folks to go to the wiki and search for all games that they can play, based on only what they currently own. Oh, and keep in mind that the VAST majority of such enumeration categories only matters to folks starting out; once someone has five TH sets of a kind, it flip-flops to where they will rarely find a game they CAN'T play--we're trying, basically, to help the beginners find the handful of games they CAN play, given the TH product in the market and early lack of five full sets. (I am sure the proliferation of one-stash-per-player games is legacy of original marketing method; and there will soon be more interest in "# TH sets" categories rather than "# stashes" categories we now have. Hmmm... another post idea....) >JAMES: >Games that are both should be listed as both. ...or as any and all that apply. This would mean that the "Single random stash" is, in effect, a "parent" of the others--if you can play with a SRS, then you can play with an STS, SOS, or STHS, and you should list them all. His point about good user design of what is, in effect, a database query is very valid. Probably the best point made in the whole discussion. :) SO... Take That! and Tic Tac Doh! are STS games because they need transparency (knowing what's a nest matters) BUT, they could be played with STHS, if one is willing to lose three moves OR if the players are advised to avoid making nests with the opaque pieces until they are the only ones left. Voila! You write in that Variation qualifier/rule, and you can also tag it STHS. But you could never tag them SRS, because it would be a nightmare avoiding opaques. Hmmm... neat-o. Such Categories--well documented--would actually drive designers to think of Variations that can leverage different piece collections. More Variations = more people who can try out your game! Woah... head spinning a bit... I sure hope we can change/add Categories, or that was all a BIG LONG digression. :) David