This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
Game theory This template is part ofWikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related toGame theory. We need your help! Join in |Fix a red link |Add content |Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory

I removed existence of NE from the list of theorems. There is already a sketch of the proof atNash equilibrium and I don't think there is much more to be said. If there is enough to warrant an article, I'd be happy to add it back in. --best, kevin···Kzollman |Talk···02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the linkage between the AT and game theory is a bit tenuous, and especially there is nothing in the AT article that creates that linkage. So I'm not sure if we should leave it in, even though the list of theorems is pretty short as it is. ~trialsanderrors03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely on the border of game theory. PerhapsGibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is closer, but even that isn't exactly game theory. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it off, and also theGuess 2/3 of the average link, which is listed atList of games in game theory but at best maginally notable ~trialsanderrors20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that this template should be drastically shortened or deleted. It is an eyesore on most articles, and it should only be a short list useful for an overview, most articles could simply be in categories.Oleg Alexandrov (talk)21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how to shorten it, in particular on how to create a feasible inclusion guideline for future articles? ~trialsanderrors22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, rm the "related topics" box, that should be inGame theory proper in context. Rm most articles in the "Games" box, only a few very representative ones should be there. Rm most equilibria too, leave a few to give the reader an idea.

Simpler yet, make sureCategory:Game theory has good categories, and then delete this template, and write a good overview atGame theory.Oleg Alexandrov (talk)04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes serve a very different purpose than categories. They're quick referral directories while categories are comprehensive (or should be). I'm in favor of not listing every marginal game or solution concept, but I want to know on what grounds we should include or exclude any individual item. ~trialsanderrors17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keeping the several most representative items only could be good.Oleg Alexandrov (talk)01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ready to weed out? ~trialsanderrors15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am .... :)Oleg Alexandrov (talk)16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ought to look at addingdynamic game balancing to the template. I don't even know if the article is valid or not, but if it is, it needs to be added since it's almost anorphan right now. —Frecklefσσt |Talk13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of acomputer game thing, so I pointed that project at the article.CRETOG8(t/c)19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pareto efficiency is listed as a solution concept. I guess that's because it's sometimes used as part ofequilibrium refinement? Anyway, I'm thinking to remove it, since it's not really a solution concept (unless I'm missing something), and thePareto efficiency article isn't currently helpful in providing context.CRETOG8(t/c)20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the second link for it. --Rajah (talk)22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should link to articles on some of the established game theorists - Nash, von Neumann, etc.—Precedingunsigned comment added by129.67.160.200 (talk)18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include the theMonty Hall problem or is the format incorrect for "game theory" since there is only one player?JamesLucas(" " /+)17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nash bargaining game, listed here under "games", links to a redirect tobargaining problem, which we list here under "classes of games". Do these really differ such that we need separate entries, and if not, which should we keep?— Precedingunsigned comment added byMacMog (talk •contribs)07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated games are mentioned on the template—shouldn'tn-player games also be included? —Perceval20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whetherabstract strategy games belong here at all (or under something likecombinatorial game theory somehow),but I think it is not at all helpful that they are all mixed up with other games.Does anybody want to subdivide this part of the box?PJTraill (talk)21:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-Class game theory pages
• NA-importance game theory pages