Talk:Long dice

I'd appreciate it if anyone had a photograph suitable for this article - it's not easy to describe the shape. Azezel 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is one image that shows dice with triangular faces (antiprism). Should the "rolling logs and teetotums" dice (that have rectangular prism faces) ([[1]]) also be mentioned in this article, or do they need their own article? --68.0.120.35 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember rectangular-faced six-sided barrel dice in the 1960s and 1970s, in Engalnd, in use for a game based on cricket; one die decided the outcome of bowling (wide, no ball, out, caught, hit; not sure if all of these were used, or what was the sixth, possibly a duplicate hit or a no-score), the other was used when the first came up as a run, to get the number of runs (with 5 probably displaced in favour of caught). I think they had simple flat ends but were simply long enough, and always thrown with axis horizontal, so that landing on end was never a problem. 213.236.208.22 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The recollection is correct in its essentials (a cricket game using 2 hexagonal barrel dice with flat ends flourishing in England in the 1960s), but (assuming you aren't thinking of something similar but different) a lot of the details aren't

The game was called 'OWZTHAT' and you rolled (the dice were machined metal bar and very definitely definitely rolled, not thrown) one 'die' which had 5 faces giving a score (1,2,3,4 & 6) - the 6th face was inscribed "OWZTHAT" . In theory, once you had rolled 'OWZAT' you then rolled the other die, which had six possible outcomes: not out (no score either) , no ball (not out, but side adds one to score) and 4 possible ways to be out ; bowled, caught, LBW, and I think the last was stumped. [In practice , as far as I recall, the player 'in' rolled both dice every time but/and only looked at the second die if the first showed 'OWZTHAT']

In later years I have occasionally wondered whether the OWZTHAT dice were 'shaved' or otherwise fixed to prevent some of the obvious oddities that would arise if all faces of the dice were equally likely to land face up: unfortunately I only started wondering after my OWZTHAT dice disappeared (thanks, Mum). Accounts elsewhere complain of the obvious oddities, but I'm not entirely clear if they have actually seen the oddities, or are just worrying that they might exist Rjccumbria (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

Since this article is very short, and will probably be permanently orphaned, should it perhaps be merged into the main article on dice? --70.49.48.55 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree.Freebird Jackson (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree. Just found this article and it was extremely helpful to me. I don't think I would have found it were it merged.65.183.132.140 (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I... don't know. This is a ridiculously short article, and it's not likely to grow much. But a redirect to Dice would be no good, unless "barrel dice" were mentioned (and the term boldfaced) in the lead of that article. A redirect to a section Dice#Barrel dice might work, though. Is there a policy about automatic redirects to sections? I think they may be a bit confusing for lay users.--Noe (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ... and there IS no such section for the time being!--Noe (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Addressing above concern: Doesn't "merge" mean "Take the content of this article and adapt it into the other?" I'm not fully versed in Wiki lingo, but if my assumption is correct, that would mean moving this to a section under Dice called Dice#Barrel Dice and making this page redirect to that section, just as you suggested, Noe. Safuman (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Do it now! --203.220.171.56 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree. It would make more sense to make a complete article pertaining to the company that owns the patents on these dice, Crystal Caste, and to then merge this article into the new article on Crystal Caste. --69.43.15.138 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Although Dice needs work, it is clearly its intent to cover all manufactured lots; and there is a home for barrel dice in Dice#Non-cubial dice and even a picture already. The second point above is very valid, and can be addressed by redirecting Barrel Dice to the Non-cubical dice section.Phil wink (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my attempt to link to a subsection doesn't work. Obviously a better editor than me is required.Phil wink (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article defines a barrel die as having triangular faces - but the newly added OWZTHAT stuff refers to a die with rectangular faces. Are they properly denoted "barrel dice" (so the definition should be altered and the dice in Daldøs should be mentioned too) -- or not?--Nø (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Description of shape

The article reads:

Its shape is that of a cylindroid with between four and twenty flattened triangular facets, each numbered. Each triangular face alternates in alignment about 180 degrees.

But it is nothing like a cylindroid as described in that article (elliptical cross section!), and the alternation of the faces is not about 180 degrees; it is (if this description is good at all - I'm not sure about that) exactly 180 degrees.--Nø (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

More on nomenclature

Reviewing some of the comments on nomenclature above, I have a suggestion. There is a long history of oblong dice with rectangular sides, usually square in section, sometimes octagonal, occasionally other. There is not one consistent term in the literature for these, but my sense is that the best is "long dice" (this is what Parlett uses). I take "barrel dice" to be a distinct term for more modern oblong dice with triangular sides. If this is right, then probably the best organization for this article would be to rename it "Long dice", meaningfully expand the coverage of traditional (prismatic) long dice, and include "Barrel dice" as a subtype in its own subsection. If others agree, I can start working on the expansion (I'll probably do it mostly off-line, so change may be sudden)... no point in moving the page until after that. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Barrel dice

This section states that barrel dice, "are generally modified antiprisms with between three and twenty flattened triangular facets, each numbered." But the word, "generally" combined with the the fact that antiprisms must have an even number of triangular faces makes this description less than clear.

Are barrel dice always based on antiprisms? If so, then they must have at least four side faces. If not, then how are barrel dice distinguished from other long dice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.26.73 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've changed "three" to "four"; at least it is now consistent. If someone believes the term "barrel dice" should include odd-faced variants, changing four back to three won't do; a larger rewrite is called for. Either way, a source would be good...

PS. Do 4-sided barrel dice even exist, and do they roll well? I have trouble visualizing them; there would be only two faces each way.--Nø (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A 4-sided barrel die?

As nearly sole author of the current version, I wish I had some insight to share, but I don't... this bit is just about the only part I retained in my rewrite, so I can't speak to what's behind it. RE: 4-sided, I suspect the authors are referring to something like this. The Commons picture does not make the structure super clear, so here's a link to a seller, where you can see the geometry a little better (the "Skew d4"). As to does it roll? I suspect as well as the pyramidal d4, but that's not saying much! Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Phil! OK, so something like a 4-sided barrel die exists; it is hereby proven! Off-topic (the topic being edits to the article), I think this stretched tetrahedron may roll better than the regular tetrahedron, but worse than a 4-sided long die with rectangular sides and square cross section, like to one used in Daldøs.--Nø (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yut sticks

There's an image of Yut sticks in the article, but no further discussion. They are peculiar in that they are nowhere near face transitive; one face is flat, and the other about semi-circular (i.e., the stick looks like a cylinder split lenghtways). This is a deviation from the normal geometry of long dice, so I think something should be said about this. (By the way, the probability distribution is near 50-50 according to some sources, or 60-40 favouring landing on the flat face according to others. Presumably, in the absence of face transitivity, the distribution can be tweaked by how they are thrown, e.g. by the horizontal velocity in the throw. Also, slight modifications to the shape could change the probabilityes significantly; e.g., rounding the edges or making the shape slightly more than a semi-circle will favour landing on the rounded face.) Nø (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nø: Thanks for the note. I've provisionally removed the Yut sticks image. I did not envision this type of lot in my original rewrite, though I'm open to discussion on this topic. My sense of the case is that half-round stick lots like these (I generally call them "throwing staves" ... nomenclature on this topic is very inconsistent) are distinguished from cubic and long dice in most literature. If that's right, then it seems to me that their description (and of course image) fits better either in the more general Dice article, or perhaps in their own Binary lots page... which could itself be quite rich in content and reliable sources (coins, cowries, throwing staves, and so many more...). And of course, any given game article can go into some detail about its typical lots. But as stated, I'm happy to field other points of view on this. Phil wink (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Phil wink I guess you are right. However, I've taken the liberty of bringing them back as a humble "See also" link. Nø (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nø: No objection. I expanded and clarified a bit... then I thought "You know what would be really clarifying here? The picture I just deleted!" So I put it back in, in the See also section, now (I hope you'll agree) with sufficient context. I expect it's quite unusual to have a pic supporting See also, but in this instance very useful, sez I. I think everyone wins now, but happy to discuss if anyone objects. Phil wink (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)