NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --


From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition A sophisticated 3-player card game that is the German national game. [d] [e]

While you're here, Hans, I'll mention that the terminology in this article doesn't seem to correspond to that in English-language sources I've seen. In particular, "tops" are usually called matadors. Peter Jackson (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Here is the relevant part of David Parlett's translation of the Skatordnung: [1]. (See last entry and his comments on the translation.) He also uses the term 'top' (without mentioning 'matador') in the 2008 edition of the Penguin Book of Card Game. I can't find my copy of the Penguin Book right now to check with that.
At the very least the descriptive translation 'top trumps' might be better than 'top', to prevent it from sounding like a reference to spinning tops.
I don't like the word 'matador' because in German it is completely outdated (most players today never heard it) except for use by some 'Reich citizens' or similar (Germany's version of American 'sovereign citizens'). I realise that the word 'matador' is still commonly used by English-speaking skat players, but so long as it is defined in the article, I guess it is better to use the more modern term rather than stabilise the old one further.
... except if you can convince me that 'matador' is used almost universally and David Parlett introduced divergent terminology with little chance of succeeding. In that case I will switch to using 'matador', after all. Hans Adler (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If you think it's now standard, no problem with using it in the article, though the alternative should be mentioned.
Another point: here they're treated as excluded from multipliers, but my recollection of some sources is that they're included. Peter Jackson (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, you are of course totally right about the definition of multipliers. I will see how I can correct this without making the rules harder to understand. Hans Adler (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)