Talk:Win-win game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merging

I don't think the articles win-win-game and win-win-strategy should be merged. The term win-win-strategy deserves more attention but it shouldn't be reduced to a game strategy. Many real-world strategies and procedures could be modelled with terms from game theory or related theories. In this case I think that would reduce the possible (not necessarily the current) scope of the article. --Fasten 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they should be merged either. I think someone should expand the current entry of a win-win-strategy. It is critical for successful negotiations and it deserves to be expanded. 30 September 2006

NO merging of these two as per Fasten.
Trade2tradewell 13:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to create a 'win-win' concept page, leading then to games theories, strategies and so on pages, separatedly. 150.217.27.186 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good idea. I was thinking similarly, that win-win game could be a disambiguation page between zero-sum game and win-win strategy. Maybe the latter should rather be merged into principled negotiation, but that should be discussed there. — Sebastian 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah i think so too . make a 'concept page' it sounds cool .

[edit] Merge (yes) with Win-Win being the main heading

Win-win should be the main header with "types" of win-wins as linked or sub definitions. Tekwarrior 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game theory

This page says that in game theory a win-win situation is called a zero-sum game. That page states that a zer-sum game means that it is impossible for both participants to win. So I'm going to remove zero-sum from this page, if anyone objects, put it here. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Hmm my mistake. But the non-zero-sum link goes to zero-sum game, which could be confusing (and was). Maybe that should be clarified.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)