Talk:Words with Friends

File:Words With Friends Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Words With Friends Logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Fun Facts"

I have removed the "Fun Facts" section that is repeatedly being added. Such sections are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. Further, all such additions have been unsourced. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And the PR guys cleverly snuck it all back in under the radar by following the notability rules! Yay :P

130.209.6.40 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the "Fun Facts" Kinu was talking about (see this edit) are in the current version. LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising Tag

Regarding the advertising tag that was place on this article a couple months ago, I'm interested to hear what language might be deemed promotional. Would appreciate it if another editor could either help me rewrite it or, if they see fit, remove the advertising tag. JovanWelks (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• RFC comment: though the Gameplay section needs to be completely rewritten, I see exactly nothing of advertising in the article. As just in nearly every case I spot this so frequently misused template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Dmitrij here, and I have removed the tag. I also agree that it might be nice to have some references for the gameplay section - is anyone aware of sources that we can use? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fine It's fine now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with above: "Gameplay" section will need sources, the advert tag was not called for. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture of game, fair use?

It would be useful to have an a picture of a game in play. Obviously acquiring one would be simple, but it's a question of copyright. Can we argue fair use? LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra move advantage

There's been a bit of back-and-forth regarding whether the first player has an "unfair" advantage, specifically this statment:

The current rules unfairly favor the first player, who can end the game (by exhausting all his tiles) after having had one more turn than his opponent (who can never have the same advantage). The player who plays second can only win while having an equal number of turns with his opponent. In close games this can easily make the difference between winning and losing. No effort has been made by Zynga to correct this situation.

I've reverted to a version without this statement as:

• I don't feel the article gains much from being that in-depth about the game-play. The statement also seems unnecessarily pejorative and accusatory, I'm not sure a trivial iPhone game, even if unbalanced, can be "unfair".
• From anecdotal experience I haven't found much, if any, first move advantage. I don't think there is any verifiable source agreeing with such analysis.
• Though such an analysis is rule-based, there are other factors at work (such as access to multiplier tiles, being able to use pre-laid tiles) that mean that determining if a first-move advantage exists (and if so, how important it is) would be a lot more complex than the analysis posted above. An attempt to do this on-wiki would be original research.

-- LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree with this assessment. I do not see how triviality has any bearing on unfairness. Fairness means equality under the rules. It has nothing to do with how important the subject matter is, whether it is a grade-school spelling contest or a presidential election. The rules have to allow the players as much equality as possible. Any game, trivial or not, that allows under its rules one player to have an extra turn over his opponent is unfair, especially when that rule can be easily amended. Your anecdotal experience obviously means that you have not played the game very much. Any player who plays this game a few dozen times will run into this situation. Statistically, I would venture to guess than one-half (approximately) of all games will end with the first player having had one more turn than his opponent. After all, there are only two possible winners, and given the probability of equal ability levels over a large number of trials (a large universe of games played) it is most likely that approximately one-half of the last moves will be taken by the first player, and the other one-half by the second player. However, in ALL (here I emphasize the word ALL) cases wherein the first player takes the final move of the game, he has had one more move than his opponent has been allowed to have. This is simply because, under the current rules, the game is ended right then and there, without the second player having any opportunity to respond.

• Another unfair "rule" in the game, this time in favor of the second player, although less important in actual practice than the preceding is the fact that if the first player creates a game, yet makes no attempt at a first move, after a certain amount of time has passed (and I am not certain of how much time, but it's in the neighborhood of a couple of days), he will have been deemed to have "resigned", and the game "lost", even though he has never pushed the (always available) resign button. I put quotation marks around the word "rule" in this case, because the rule is not specifically in the rule book, although any player can test it out by simply creating a game and then making no moves.

Backspace (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Backspace. Discount the second half of my first bullet if you like, it's the least important of my points. The most important though, and this is why we can't have this statement in the article, is the third: your analysis, even if correct, would constitute original research. If you can find a study where someone has assessed the first move advantage in this game, please do cite it and add the relevant info. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please understand my point. I am not talking about a first-move advantage per se. I am talking about the rules allowing one player to have one more turn than his opponent does. Whether this occurs for the first player or for the second player is irrelevant. We need no original research to conclude that the rules in half of all cases allow one player, specifically the first player, to have one more turn than his opponent does. That point cannot be disputed if you read the rulebook. It can be easily demonstrated in real practice by playing a few games. In every game wherein the first player makes the final move of the game, he has had one more move than his opponent has had. This fact cannot be mathematically or logically denied. Backspace (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. We could add a sentence "The game ends when one player has exhausted all of their tiles and there are no tiles remaining. As in Scrabble this player receives the sum total of the value of the tiles remaining on their opponent's rack, and the opponent has this sum deducted from their score. If the player who initially played first is the one who finishes, that means they will have played one more turn in total in the game than their opponent. - such wording states the facts, but without analysis as to whether there is a notable advantage for either player. If you're happy with this then that's great, let's add it.

Generally though, I'm not keen on adding detail on the gameplay where it is identical to Scrabble, I imagine a very large proportion of this article's readers are familiar with the rules of Scrabble and their consequences, and those who aren't can follow the links to the Scrabble article. I think explaining the full rules of Scrabble in this article would be unnecessary duplication, I like my articles lean & mean.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I want to state the facts, but I want to state why the facts result in unfairness in the game. The objective of the game is to win. There is no reason to believe that either player, when given one more opportunity to play than his opponent has, will use this opportunity to decrease his chance of winning rather than to increase his chance of winning. If you call this a biased analysis of advantage in favor of the first player then so be it. Clearer heads can see the obvious implications of being allowed one more opportunity to alter the outcome than your opponent has had.

On comparing the game to Scrabble, one should not assume that all, or even most, players of this game are familiar with Scrabble and its rules. I would venture to say that, electronically, there are probably more players of WWF than there have been players of Scrabble, which was much more popular in the past as a real (physical, tactile, that is) "board" game, not just something on an electronic display screen. I myself played Scrabble years ago and know for a fact that the rules of this game cannot possibly be anywhere near the same as those of Scrabble. I have not played Scrabble in years, nor do I remember the exact rules (or whether they were "fair" under the circumstances), but I do remember playing it, and it was always with a group of four players. This immediately puts the game in a slightly different category as far as the rules go, because there are only two possible players in this game. Backspace (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, we can state that there can be uneven number of turns between the first and second player, but we cannot, without a reference, come to your conclusion that this makes the game significantly imbalanced as this analysis would be original research. 10:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In this game, or in any game, what is the purpose of having a turn to play? Is it to win, is it to lose, or is it merely to kill time aimlessly? Would a baseball game be fair if the trailing team did not get to bat in the last half of the ninth inning? Backspace (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently played a game where I played second, and was able to form an eight letter word (35 point bonus) using one of the letters from my opponent's word. I would not have been able to do this if I had gone first. Does this happen a lot? Does this mean there's actually an advantage to being player two? Unless we can find an appropriate source, we cannot do such analysis on Wikipedia. It would be original research. -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And the first player has never formed an eight-letter word using one letter from the second player? You must be joking.

You would be quite correct in that you would not be allowed to do analysis of your particular example. However, I am not interested in your particular example. I am only interested in the fact that the rules specifically allow one player to have one more turn than his opponent is allowed. Most people would infer that to mean an advantage to that particular player (who, as it so happens, is always the first player and never the second player). The object of the game is to win. To win, one has to score points. To score points, one must have a turn (opportunity) to score points. If one player has more opportunities to score, assuming that both players are of equal playing ability (which they will be, statistically, after millions of games, or the universe of games that have ever been played, since being first player or second player will be more or less randomly determined), that player has a higher probability of scoring more points. That is the obvious result of the rule in the WWF rulebook that specifically allows one player to legally have one more turn than the opponent does. Most people can see that any game that allows this is unfair, especially when that unfairness can be so easily corrected. Backspace (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone has actually done such a statistical study of a large number of games please cite it. However we cannot consider your thought-experiment, exposed on this talk page, to be a verifiable source. At least two editors have not found your logic to be fully persuasive.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." - NinaSpezz challenged your statement when she removed it first time. I'm challenging it now - my suspicion is that any first-move advantage, if it exists, is negligible compared to how lucky one is with the draw of the tiles over the game.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source".

From Wikipedia:No Original Research:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." - Your statement that the first player has an unfair advantage is not advanced by any source so far cited in this article. Rather than try to persuade me on this talk page, please find a verifiable source that advances the position you advocate.

-- LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there are some of us who are able to read plain English, and others of us who are not able to. Once again I will say that I am not talking about a first move advantage. I wish someone would change the heading to this particular section. Would you all get off the side topic of first-move advantage please? It is not a first-move advantage that I am talking about. It is an extra move advantage that in this particular case occurs only for the first player. How hard is it for any of you to see that some games will end with one player having had one move more than his opponent? How hard is it for any of you to see that this is not fair? How hard is it for any of you to see that this is written expressly in the rule book? Read the rule book, please. There is your source. No topic emanating from original research has ever been proposed from this end. Backspace (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The rules state that a player may have one more turn than his opponent, yes. The rules do NOT state that this results in an unfair advantage for player one. This analysis is YOURS, and therefore is original research. LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit circular - I've posted at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Words_With_Friends so hopefully someone from there can adjudicate. LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is true that my original edit claimed unfairness. My second edit has removed all claims of unfairness. In fact, it specifically states that no such claims are made. The only specific claim made, that of the possible unequal number of turns, is supported by reference to the rulebook. Backspace (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless this ha been remarked upon in a reliable source it is original research. The only thing it could possibly be allowed under is WP:CALC and really I can't see why one would bother trying to stick it in anyway - and it definitely fails under consensus for that. It is just an editors thoughts, if it was actually interesting enough someone would have noted it somewhere and it doesn't sound particularly worth bothering about to me. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, as the third opinion here, could you edit this page to something that you feel is acceptable? -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there something more in the ending conditions, they don't seem complete to me. What if both players still have tiles but neither can play? I guess they also end then, is that in the rules? Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are three passed moves in succession the game is ended. I've added this to the article. In my experience this is pretty rare. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me say again that there has been no original research and absolutely no claims of fairness or unfairness are made in my current statement. The only claim specifically made is supported by direct reference to the rule book. Backspace (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. Backspace, your proposed addition is original research. If it was important, or meaningful, it would be addressed by third party sources. Find one. Further, your most recent addition was totally unacceptable - "The fairness or unfairness resulting from such inequity may be interpreted as the reader wishes." This is not encyclopedic tone. Please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Again I say that there has been no original research and no claims of fairness or unfairness are made in the current statement. Your definition of "important" or "meaningful" is nothing more than your own personal opinion, which cannot be supported on Wikipedia. Backspace (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented here believes you are wrong. In fact, everyone who has commented here and at WP:ORN thinks you are wrong. Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have more than 30,000 edits here at Wikipedia, and for each of them my first concern is factuality. Based solely on that consideration, I would have to say that the answer to your question is no. This statement does not mean that there is no possibility that I am wrong, because there is admittedly great possibility that I could be wrong. And I have been wrong many times and fully admit so. But to answer your particular question regarding this article, the answer is no; I never considered it. And I fully believe in honesty. Backspace (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence in reality never mind in reliable sources that going second does anything to ones chances in the game so why on earth are you so concerned to stick anythig like that into the article? Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For a while, I had considered that maybe you, Dmcq, were the one reasonable person here, but first impressions can so often be proven to be untrue. Backspace (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search with google about first player advantage with this game and there were a couple of answers saying they didn't know. I see no straightforward strategy stealing argument like hex. There may well be an advantage but it certainly has not been established that I can see either theoretically or by somebody publishing statistics of overall games played. At the level of sticking anything into Wikipedia it is pure speculation. Dmcq (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There probably have never been any exhaustive studies done regarding the percentage of wins for the first player versus percentage of wins for the second player. The only organization that might possibly have the database necessary is most likely Zynga itself, and as far as I know they have never published anything regarding the issue. On a personal level, as a mathematician that you are, what is your personal opinion as to the fairness of a game that (in my judgement as a non-mathematician only) allows approximately half of all games to end with one side having had one extra move over the other side, realizing that the extra move is not randomly allocated between the two players, but is allowed only the first player and never the second. Realize that I am not asking you to prove anything, which you cannot do without significant relevant data, but just your own personal opinion on whether this situation appears fair or not. First of all, would I be correct to assume, mathematically or statistically, the hypothesis that approximately one-half of all games will end with the first player having had one more turn than his opponent? And given that if the case be so, is that "fair" (admittedly a judgement call)? Backspace (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are some statistics showing the first player in Scrabble has an advantage in practice, I don' know how much. Scrabble was designed so the first player did not get much from the first move and opened better possibilities for the second player. I don't know about this game but it sounds like it was designed in a similar manner to try and even up the odds, I am perfectly prepared to believe the first player has some advantage though like in Scrabble. The point as far as Wikipedia is concerned is that this is not documented anywhere in a reliable source. The rule book doesn't say anything about one player having an extra move. basically one shouldn't be sticking something like this in if no reliable source has shown interest in the question. Have a look at the Scrabble article, it doesn't say anything like this and lots more people have shown an interest in it. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am saying that this is not a first-move advantage per se. It is an extra-move advantage that just so happens can only occur for the first player. One player (only the first player) is allowed to have one more move than the other player by the rules. The second player would also have the same advantage if he were the one to be allowed one extra move. Unfortunately for him, this is an impossibility under current rules. If the rule book does not specifically allow one player to have one extra move, then how is it possible for the first player to sometimes be the one who makes the final move of the game (exhaust all his tiles)? Are you saying that all games must end with the second player making the final move of the game (thereby equalizing the number of moves)? You know as well as I do that this is ludicrous. Do you play the game yourself? If you do, then you must know that this is not the case. On the question of interest, the only thing I can say is that lack of interest does not mean non-existence. Thank you for at least being more reasonable than these others. Backspace (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This game can easily be made fair (at least as number of moves allotted each player) by a simple rule change. Why it has not already been done is incomprehensible to me, but would certainly remove most of my reason for writing such edits as these. Backspace (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's all fine to say in a chat forum about he game. However if you don't have a reliable source it just shouldn't be here. That's what the WP:original research policy is all about. As to them changing the rules that is up to people outside Wikipedia, it is none of our business unless some source talks about them thinking of changing the rules. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would any source talk about them thinking about changing the rules if they are not thinking about changing the rules? Backspace (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What information should this article contain

I would like to see this article contain a little more information about the game that is not available on the cute little rules page. For instance, a list of how many of each letter the game contains, a description of the dictionary they use (or a link to its article if it has one), and maybe some history of the development of the game. Lawrance1 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

While there's a few editors looking at this article, let's have a broader discussion. What depth of content should this article contain, specifically re: the gameplay? Personally I think a good line to draw is including the rules that differ from Scrabble (there aren't that many differences!), and referring readers to the Scrabble article for the rest - a statement such as "The rules are the same as those of two-player Scrabble, but with the following differences." could precede the section.

For what it's worth this version is basically what I'm talking about. However, its a matter of judgement, so I thought we could have a discussion here. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The main content of an article should be set by secondary sources commenting on the topic. What you seem to be talking about is including a chunk from the rule book which would be counted as a primary source. Bits of primary sources should only normally be included if secondary sources have discussed something covered by a primary source. They are used to add accuracy or fill out a bit on what has been discussed. Taking large chunks out of primary sources without some such justification is normally considered undue because no secondary source has shown any interest. However normally people will not complain too much if some small amount is included to give a rounded background or fill in some obvious holes. There is no need though for this article to duplicate the rule book. That is what references are for. Users should be directed to the actual rules if they want to know them in any detail. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've requested Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games re-assess the article on their quality scale, and suggest how the article can be improved. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If nobody else has done so I will try to get an assessment done tonight and provide you some feedback. Someoneanother 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see how many points you get for using up all your tiles in one move - a Bingo. Myrvin (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lexicon

This article should probably mention what dictionary is used by Words with Friends. T71024 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary they start with is a public domain dictionary called Enable. They claim there are roughly 173,000 eligible words, however over 4200 of them are over 15 letters long and cannot be played. The game manufacturers have added some new words over the years and also removed quite a few slurs, swear words and other offensive words in order to appeal to a broader public. Pixpixpix (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Number variants

I am removing the section titled "number variants" (can be seen in this version).

My rationale for this is that these games have no connection to Words With Friends, other than they are computer games played with a grid and tiles. None are produced by Zynga. The article would be exceptionally messy were it to include every game which bears such a resemblance.

These games could be given separate articles of their own - I don't think the correct place for this information is in an article for a largely unrelated game. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Luke, I modeled this page under the Scrabble page. In that case there is a variant section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble#Variations and a separate more detailed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble_variants

Clearly all these games have been inspired by Scrabble and Words with Friends. This modification listed the two of these Scrabble variants that are computer games, and therefore more relevant to Words with Friends than to Scrabble.

I do not understand how this makes them irrelevant.

Is this a Zynga page or a Wikipedia article???

Please let me know why this section should stay out. -- Jimkerry3 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd contend that these games are variations on the primary game, Scrabble, more than they are variations on Words With Friends - WWF is essentially a Scrabble variant/clone. The reason I cite Zynga is that, had these games been produced by the same company (and use similar interfaces etc.), it could be argued that there is a connection. I am not aware of any WP:Reliable Source that establishes that there is a connection between the games. The Scrabble article also has only a single sentence for Numble, Yushino, GoSum and Triolet - this is more conservative than having a whole section.

I do not feel the resemblance between the format of the games is reason enough to dedicate a section of one article to describing another game.

May I suggest creating new articles for these games? They could be linked to from this article in a See Also section, acknowledging their resemblance. If you wish to use the Wikimarkup you used to write the section you can access it here.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no physical variants of these two games; they are only electronic. In contrast to Numble and Triolet which are only physical games. Considering that Scrabble dominates the physical game space and WWF the electronic one, GoSum and Yushino belong more in this article than the Scrabble one, if anything. The Scrabble article is so long that there are separate articles for variants. Not the case with the WWF article. Jimkerry3 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• As it seems we're completely at odds here I've requested a third opinion. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• As a neutral third opinion editor, I recommend using Wikipedia:No original research to help decide this - "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In other words, to include this material, we would need to find reliable sources that compare Words with Friends to Yushino and GoSum. I tried searching Google and Google News, and I couldn't find useful sources for including Yushino (only self-published blog/forum posts), but I found this iMore post comparing Words with Friends to GoSum. Not a very strong source, but at least it's independent. To avoid giving undue weight to GoSum, I'd suggest making a section called "Similar games" with short descriptions of various mobile games compared to Words with Friends in reliable sources, including GoSum - searching Google News also found Wordament, Letterpress and Boggle, Word Derby, and WordStreet. I imagine you can find more with additional searching; just make sure that each game has been explicitly compared to Words with Friends in a reasonable source. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. This seems like a reasonable solution. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While Gosum probably qualifies as a Words With Friends variant, its use of arithmetic operators differentiates it from Numble (which uses strictly 0-9 and blank on its tiles); it appears to be more like the game Tuf, although that game used cubes and no board. -- That Don Guy (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just replaced the mostly-unsourced "number variants" section with a sourced "similar games" section, as discussed above in my third opinion, and in the process I removed the comparison of GoSum to Numble. The thing with game comparisons in general is that we need to reference them to reliable sources - see Wikipedia:No original research. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, comparing Scrabble to Words with Friends is an oxymoron, as the latter is a blatant copy of the former, so I am rewording that part and of course adding a link to Scrabble, which is the father of them all. Second, I think from a point of view of an encyclopedia the important thing is to be complete, rather than to be an aggregator of top stories or articles. That's Google's job. Also, I wouldn't sign up to be an editor if I didn't have the ability to test things and voice my own opinion, as opposed to relying to 3rd party sources. "Independent articles" are more often than not bought out anyway and a third party, independent, encyclopedia is the only place where you should be able to find a complete, objective account for each article. So, continuing in the spirit above, I searched, downloaded (in some cases it cost me some money), and tested all the apps I could find on that subject, and I am adding two new links to the article: Five-O and Yushino. They may use numbers vs letters, but are closer in my opinion to Scrabble (read: words with friends, as the latter is just a knockoff of Scrabble) than Letterpress and Wordament, which are just games involving letters, as opposed to games involving the crossword structure of Scrabble. I'm resisting deleting these two, which seems to be a popular sport in Wikipedia, but I don't necessarily approve of.Arthurgray2 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• This can be frustrating, but Wikipedia does depend on secondary sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability for a long but useful explanation. If you and I disagree about whether Words with Friends is a copy of Scrabble or inspired by Scrabble, or if we disagree about whether Letterpress is similar to Words with Friends, we could be stuck forever trying to argue with each other about our opinions, which wouldn't produce a good encyclopedia. Instead, we look up what reliable sources say and cite them. We still have to use good sense to figure out what to include in the article, and we have to figure out which sources are actually reliable (especially when sources disagree), but we have to cite sources. Check out the Wikipedia:No original research link I included above. If you suspect that a referenced source isn't sufficiently independent, write a comment here and we can discuss it and maybe remove that information or try to find a better source.

Specific to this article, I think we have to be careful about saying that Words with Friends is a "copy" of Scrabble, since that's a fairly strong claim; we'd need to cite that to a source, or change it to the less controversial "similar" phrasing used in the article introduction. It'd be fine with me to remove Letterpress and Wordament if you believe they aren't very similar to Words with Friends, since the sources aren't very strong. The cited Five-O homepage doesn't mention Words with Friends; instead, we can cite a review such as this App Chronicles article or Macenstein article (not very strong sources, since they're basically self-published blogs, but at least they seem independent), or a better independent source if you can find one. For Yushino, citing their App Store page is probably better than citing their website, since their App Store description says "Yushino is Words With Friends with Numbers". It'd be better to cite a secondary source though. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of article title

Shouldn't the main article be named Words With Friends (with a capital "W" in "With")? The HTML title of the game's web page, iTunes page, Google Play page, and Facebook page all use a capital "With". AlphaPyro (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No mention of New Words With Friends?

This article doesn't seem to at all mention New Words With Friends.Should we add a section about it? -- numbermaniac (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No mention of intellectual property infringement issues

as a game being based upon Scrabble, some mention of infringement would be useful, if only to define boundaries of IP protection laws Howard from NYC (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WWF 2

What's the difference between WWF and WWF 2 ? 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Crookesmoor (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)