Talk:Rumis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In section «Rules», subsection «Equipment», the sentence:

The pieces are composed of two, three, and four cubes. Each player has eleven colored blocks, each block with a different shape (two of the four cube blocks are reflections of each other).,

should be something like:

The pieces are four sets of the eleven possible polycubes composed of two, three, and four unit cubes; in each such (Herzberger Quader) set of blocks, each block has a different shape (two of the four-cube blocks are chiral: they mirror each other). Each player has one set with its distinct color.;

shouldn't it? —JavBol (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrator David Eppstein:

• What do you think about these proposed changes, please?
• Could you check whether the changes that I've already made to the article are idiomatically phrased, please? (Tell me if there is another administrator to whom I should ask about idiomaticity, please.)

In advance, thank you very much for your answers. —JavBol (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need someone to be an administrator to provide advice about article wording. Being an administrator is for other stuff. Anyway, my first reaction is: the first sentence of your rewrite is far too long. Try to split up the ideas you are trying to convey into multiple shorter sentences. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrator David Eppstein:

Then, what about the following splitting:

The pieces are four sets of the eleven possible polycubes composed of two, three, and four unit cubes. In each such (Herzberger Quader) set of blocks, each block has a different shape — two of the four-cube blocks are chiral: they mirror each other. Each player has one set with its distinct color.,

please?

Would you know a Wikipedia user to whom I could ask about idiomaticity, particularly in the changes that I've already made to the article, please?

In advance, thank you very much for your new answers. —JavBol (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, "Administrator" is not part of my name.

"Herzberger Quader" cannot be understood from this phrasing without following the link.

Your first sentence still combines two distinct ideas and your second sentence combines at least three. They are too long.

The last sentence does not make clear that each player has blocks of one color, distinct from the colors of the other players. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thank you, again. (Specifying «Administrator» explained to new editors why I asked you my questions.)

@Steelpillow:

What do you think about the following rewrite:

The pieces are four sets of the eleven possible polycubes composed of two, three, and four unit cubes. (Each of these sets of blocks corresponds to that of the Herzberger Quader puzzle.) In each such set, each block has a different shape. (But two of the four-cube blocks are chiral: they mirror each other.) Each player has one such set, of one color (distinct from the colors of the other sets).,

please?

Could you check whether the changes that I've already made to the Rumis article are idiomatically phrased, please? (I'm not yet used to many English words & phrases about games, + I'll also edit the Blokus article.)

In advance, thank you very much for your answers. —JavBol (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I agree that a fuller description is needed if the article is to stand up. But is it actually notable? Where are the reliable sources to show that it is? Those sources must surely have sensible descriptions of the pieces and their use, but are they even in English? There is significant research to do here, before attempting any worthwhile rewrite. Without this, lack of fluency in English grammar and expression will likely be reverted by other editors. Endlessly repeated attempts on talk pages, such as this one, are unlikely to come good. With sources cited, other editors may be able to bring such an article edit up to an acceptable standard.

Secondly, banging on about administrator privileges is utterly irrelevant to content discussions, especially for the poor confused newcomer. Lay off it!

Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow:

I have the Blokus 3D game; it is the same as Rumis, only renamed & repackaged, as explained in the box. My brother has the Blokus game. Each box features clear descriptions of the pieces & their use. I can even buy the genuine Rumis game (& give it to my brother), if necessary to the Rumis article.

Each of these games has won many awards, & Blokus has several spinoffs on top of Blokus 3D. I hope these facts justify a Blokus article & a Rumis article on Wikipedia.

I don't see what can be wrong with starting a message to David Eppstein with «@Administrator David Eppstein». I called him precisely because he is an administrator, specialized in math (& computer science); helping users is part of his job, isn't it? —JavBol (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JavBol Neither you nor your brother is a reliable source as defined for Wikipedia. In my role as an editor here, I am not reliable even where I wrote the peer-reviewed text being cited, and I have to be extra careful not to fall foul of WP:Expert. You don't need to understand why our rules are this way, or why your chosen mode of address is inappropriate here, you just need to accept that they are, that you have much to learn about being a Wikipedia editor, and to back off when more experienced editors warn you that you have gone wrong. You have been here for quite a while. To be honest, if my repeated advice to you is having no lasting effect, there is little point in your pinging me any more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow:

I know that neither me nor my brother is a reliable source as defined for Wikipedia (from time to time, I do learn a few things). I just (unclearly) implied that, e.g., having the Blokus 3D box, I can quickly give to other editors (correct) informations about this game, about the 5 awards it claims it has won in the whole world, about the 21 awards it claims Blokus, Blokus Duo, & Blokus Trigon have won altogether, & that reliable sources could then more easily be found for these informations.

Other reason why I've called David Eppstein & then you:

I wanted to know whether I could add to the Rumis article the statement:

(Each of these sets of blocks corresponds to that of the Herzberger Quader puzzle.),

because it is parenthetical, obvious, interesting, but unsourced… —JavBol (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:

Would the following URL, of an eBay photo of a Rumis box clearly & readably showing 4 award seals it claims it has won, be a reliable source to prove that Rumis has won these, please?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ng4AAOSwF8Ni~~vB/s-l1200.jpg —JavBol (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JavBol no —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:

https://www.spiel-des-jahres.de/en/games/rumis/ also claims, in German (translated by Google Translate):

(1) RUMIS […]. Its designer, Stefan Kögl, won second prize at the 2001 International Game Designers Competition.;

(2) RUMIS is available in a standard edition, a standard kit, and an extra kit with more tiles and templates..

https://www.bambusspieleverlag.de/archiv/spiele/z_murmel/download/rumis+_spielanleitung_e.pdf , in English, gives the name of the extra kit: Rumis+
(«bambusspieleverlag» means «bamboo games publisher»).

Could I add these informations, with these sources, to the Rumis article, please? —JavBol (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you need my permission? If you want to know if that web site is a reliable source, ask the reliable source noticeboard (but my guess is yes). If you want to add it to the Rumis article, be bold, but be prepared to discuss it if other editors of that article disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:
Thank you for your answers, again.

I could download to my smartphone the photo from:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ng4AAOSwF8Ni~~vB/s-l1200.jpg ;
could I upload it to Wikimedia Commons & add it to the top section of the Rumis article for fair use (just showing it), (& move the current photo down to the article body), please?

If so, would the file name «File:Rumis game box top.jpg» be appropriate, please?

I couldn't find any RS for Rumis having won the «Learning Magazine» Teacher's Choice Award.
(«Learning Magazine» is now something else, dedicated to business L&D; «Learning Magazine»'s new name is Teach Magazine.)
The only solution I can think of would be that someone entitled to send emails from WP asks Teach Magazine (at:
https://teachmag.com/contact/ )
to publicly display on their website a history (updated every year) of all the games/toys they've awarded (with the corresponding awards & years)… :-P
(Creative Child sells on their website some of the games/toys they've awarded, so they list only these. But Teach Magazine doesn't sell theirs; so, a priori, they could list them all.)
This official history would be a RS for many other game/toy articles, including Blokus, on WP. —JavBol (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rumis-board game.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]