Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete There is a strong consensus to see this page go - apart from those who have a direct stake in these pages, there is little support for the retainment of these pages. Even including those who are direct users of the service, there is a strong consensus to remove the content. Furthermore, among the members of the Esperanza AC who had a say, there was a consensus to delete as well ....(well 2-1 anyway). Hence, deleted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games

I understand that it's important to have a sense of community, and to be able to interact with fellow editors in other ways than the 'norm. I think the Esperanza Coffee Lounge area and concept are in a bit of a gray area for the whole "not a social networking site", but these pages created to play games are too much. Wikipedains are free to talk to each other and can set up such games externally. There are many free and more efficient services where they can play. To actually play these games on Wikipedia is needless and a clear violation of WP:NOT. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The following pages are also bundled into this MfD:

• What the...? Delete! —[admin] Pathoschild 07:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, I really think very few of the Esperanza members realize this is an encyclopedia, not a social club. Can't they find a forum somewhere to do this stuff? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Burninate. Long time coming. - crz crztalk 16:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a homepage or game site. --Quiddity 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a social network site, a gaming site, a hang out site. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you have an issue with this, bring it up to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Governance and contact the current Advisory Council. Also, you can mention your concerns on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge and Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. But I don't think the deletion discussion has to be put up here on MFD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sorry but this isn't appropriate. Move this to an external website, but this isn't acceptable per WP:NOT. Decimate the town and salt the earth, I think. Moreschi 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a nominal member of Esperanza, I find the page quite strange. Sense of community, yes, but social-networking forum, no. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately, Ed, Esperanza is not outside or above Wikipedia policy. Therefore, deletion discussions referring to project space items on the Wiki are discussed in MfD. Allowing the EA governance board to decide would be like allowing the creator of a vanity article to decide single-handedly whether it should stay. If Esperanzians want to play games, they can create accounts on Yahoo! and play on Yahoo Games. This is an enormous waste of server space and completely unrelated to what we are trying to accomplish here. Srose (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Waste of server space? Maybe. But that is not our concern here. See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Carcharoth 02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that is not our concern is terribly misquoting the article you linked. The first sentence of WP:PERF says "When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content, such as editing a page, reorganising a category, or modifying a template...." This doesn't qualify at all. -- Renesis (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I am saying that "it overloads the server" is a strawman argument for deletion. There are valid reasons for deletion (primarily irrelevance) that I agree with, but it is annoying to see people using incorrect arguments to support deletion, particularly when there are perfectly valid arguments available. See my "train passengers" analogy further down the page. Carcharoth 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who nominated this MfD, and I can tell you that server performance was not a factor in that. Carcharoth is completely right. You say "doesn't qualify at all", it's giving examples, saying, when you do stuff on Wikipedia. "such as" being the key part of that statement. Stop with the pointless little arguments that don't have anything to do with this MfD. If you use weak rationale then you make an easy target for someone to debunk. Don't use weak rationale, we don't need it, it hurts the argument. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said that this was a "waste of server space"—I am not the one whose delete vote Carcharoth was replying to. I only said that Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance is not a valid reason to keep this page (or oppose a rationale for deleting it, if "keep" is a strong word). Also, I think you need to re-read the intro to WP:PERF. The problem with applying WP:PERF is not that this type of game is not listed as "valid". The first phrase is "When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content". Coffee lounge games certainly do not qualify as "making improvements to Wikipedia's content". I don't see how you can argue that at all. -- Renesis (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not conducive to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. Coffee Lounge, yes. Endless games pages, no. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, they're fun, but not really what we're trying to achive on Wikipedia. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. They were fun while they lasted... -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well, it does send the focus of Esperanza more to the encyclopedia. It is a main concern these days.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm in Esperanza and haven't played these games (other than I think Hangman once). The server wear is a valid concern. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Carcharoth 02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While I understand that it might build community, it heavily detracts from what Wikipedia is. If wikipedians want to play games, by all means do so, but we should do so somewhere else. Coordinate on the Esperanza IRC channel and meet up on some online game site. There are plenty of alternatives. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No longer active. Unencyclopedic. Sr13 07:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nom is correct, runs contrary to wikipedia. ReverendG 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yep. Esperanza facilitates the encyclopedia, but this does not. -- Natalya 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't Wikipedia:Hangman and Wikipedia:Chess championship be nominated as well? Game playing pages aren't just exclusive to esperanza.  YDAM TALK 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, if some user without many other unencyclopedic subpages is willing to take it. Are you going to expand this to include Sandbox games, such as word association? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Burn with fire, lots and lots of fire Totally brings people astray of the true mission of the project and is unnecessary. Yanksox 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Defer to allow further discussion - see Category:Wikipedia games for lots of similar things that should really be discussed en masse to see whether deletion, archiving, or whatever, is the best option. Carcharoth 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Defer. Per above. I'd say, delete, but let's discuss. If the nominated pages have to go, then Category:Wikipedia games should also go. If the games have to go, a number of quiz pages to go. I remember spending the whole day working out on quiz questions and not doing anything worthwhile. Now, I feel, all these supplementary stuff are just taking up unnecessary volunteering time out of us. Time is more worth in Wikipedia. Surely the community will come up with a better way to enhance the sense of community. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed, when looking through old discussions on this topic, that Wikipedia-related games (eg. Wikipedia:Wikistory and Wikipedia:Wikirace) are considered OK, but non-Wikipedia ones are not (eg. chess). So some of the ones in Category:Wikipedia games will be OK, and some won't. Also, Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship is (unsurprisingly) marked as inactive, which reminds me that tagging as "rejected", "inactive" or "historical" could be a compromise solution. Carcharoth 01:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all - I know I'm a bit of a pea in the garden (And boy is the garden big!), but I feel that although these pages are borderline, I feel that for a number of reasons they should be kept. 1) Numerous other programmes on Wikipedia should be looked into if this one is deleted... 2) Chess is knowledge building right? 3) I think you guys should really leave Esperanza alone. The coffee lounge etc is there to help keep Wikipedians happy. Who's gonna write an encyclopedia if only a handful are left. Believe me, I've seen more than 100 editors leave due to editor stress, & many more complain about how mean a place Wikipedia has become in the last months. Let's face it, where you allow places for people to talk (such as user talk pages etc) people will talk! They will try & expand every loop hole to simply try to reach out to other editors. If you don't want any mucking about, delete admins, as we only really need to edit an article here! Not archiving their failed RfA's would save millions in itself! Cut out user pages & user talks, as we only need to discuss articles, not the people who create them! Basically, deletionists have gone way overboard deleting things when they don't how it will effect the community. I feel we should have an official discussion before anything is deleted. I mean, we could stop the archiving of the games, as who really wants to look over old games? Maybe I'm missing something here cause everyone else wants to delete or maybe everyone else is just to afraid to say they wanna have fun? I know I don't wanna be working on a lame boring site... Please don't attack me now.... :( Spawn Man 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unencyclopedic silliness; I'm amazed that these went on long enough to be archived before someone thought to MfD them. (Also amazed that someone archived their old games of tic-tac-toe.) Having never wandered into Esperanza's space before, I've half a mind to MfD the coffee lounge itself, considering people are intentionally posting nonsense and generally using the page as a blog/chatroom/myspace clone. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Spawn Man I agree. There is always some sort of socializing amongst Wikipedia users lurking somewhere in WikiProjects, User talk pages, and even article discussion pages! The point is: Wikipedia is a wide community. There is always some sort of a social network among online communities. It is inevitable. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Change Vote to Keep--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Opabinia regalis How is this unencyclopedic silliness? Members of Esperanza only go to the Coffee Lounge to take a "break" from the stressful editing. The topics on that page is only intended for amusement. You simply cannot say that Esperanza is a pointless and meaningless organization just because you've never been a member. The only way to fully understand to purpose of Esperanza is to be actively involved.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already noted that there is importance in a sense of community, but to play board games on Wikipedia crosses the line. Discussion is one thing, games are another. And for the record, a great deal of user talk pages and user pages come up on MFD because only socializing was done and no discussion about articles, etc. We delete such pages that are of no benefit to Wikipedia. This MFD is only a bundle of the Esperanza related games, but I'd be glad to mark similar pages for their own MFD entry.
    • As I said before, there's nothing stopping anyone from leaving a message saying "hey, lets meet up on yahoo games for a game of chess". There is no reason whatsoever for the games to take place on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I didn't say Esperanza was pointless and meaningless. These games, however, are both. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a member of Esperanza, but I don't feel too strongly about this either way. So I have a few questions; firstly, will these games be acceptable as user subpages? I already have a game running, WikiPlomacy that's actually starting to become rather popular, if I do say so myself, on a subpage of mine. Is that acceptable, and if so, will moving the Chess, Checkers, etc., etc., be allowed on user subpages? Secondly, I understand the concerns that the coffee lounge is frivolous, nonsensical, a chat room, and whatnot, but if you delete the coffee lounge, you might as well delete Esperanza. Esperanza's purpose is to spread a sense of community amongst Wikipedians. What better way to do that than to have a place for editors to talk about something other than articles? Not to mention friends you can make in order to help you out in real editing. Listen, Wikipedia isn't your normal encyclopedia. It's not this stern, impassive face written by stodgy old experts and whatnot; it's written by your average, everyday person. And the average, everyday person doesn't like to work all day; they'll leave eventually. Now you can say why not just go to a chatroom, but in all honesty, that might not be a good idea. What's wrong with a shorter route to accomplishing the same purpose? DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as an active memeber of esperanza and a border-line deletionist, I'm torn on this one. I won't cast an opinion either way, but I will say that these programs, despite WP:NOT, have helped a lot of editors remain committed to wikipedia. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's true. There have been many Esperanzians who have come back as a result of our programs. This organization helps the Wikipedia Community by providing support to stressed users. So if you want to delete the coffee lounge games, then delete the Coffee Lounge. If you're going to delete the Coffee Lounge, then you might as well delete Esperanza's programs. Then Esperanza would be nothing.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You are equating the value of Esperanza to tic-tac-toe ........... If I were a member of Esperanza I'd be really offended by that. Again, only the games are up for deletion. Talk about bird poop for all I care, but the games cross the line. They are of no value and if I were in Esperanza I'd be really embarrassed that they were there for so long. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So let's say that the Game pages are deleted. What effect would that have on what a user of Wikipedia does when he/she doesn't feel like editing. I've seen other pages that hosted games. I've even seen a Hangman tournament lurking around somewhere. Will deleting these pages have an effect on whether people play or not? No.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • People shouldn't be playing games on Wikipedia. What's really nuts about all of this is even if it's allowed... it's still dumb. There's sooooo many better ways to play such games over the internet, it's insane to play them on Wikipedia. Like I said before, it's likely in Esperanza's better interests to not be associated with such insanity. Make a page so people can coordinate and meet up for games that are hosted off of Wikipedia, that would be fine by me. You'd have everything you are asking for, and it'd be easier, more fun, and more successful. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to Ned Scott - A lot of people have said many a thing Ned, but not all of them were for the best were they? Think of it like water. Water finds the easiest way to get to the ocean. Its force is so determined that it creates huge valleys such as the Grand Canyon! So people have created systems such as canals & sewers etc. Now apply that to our situation here. People are going to have fun. Admit it, even in corporate offices, people still find time to play solitare! Whether you delete the fun pages, people are still going to muck around & play whether you try & stop it or not. In the end, deleting these games pages will only achieve the hatred of the deletionists & no-funists, but no matter how many fun pages, talk pages or subpages, people will still find a way. It's useless! Why fight a losing battle for something which takes up so little room compared to all the writing used to try & discuss the actual deletions! Besides, would you rather have stressed users turning to other games sites to play, or would you rather that they spent most of their time here playing games? that way, not only is everyone happy, but you also have people not only writing here, but playing here too! I mean, someone's making their chess move & then they write or contribute whilst waiting! This is in contrast to someone switching sites to go to a chess site etc where they'll have to re-enter Wikipedia later, losing valuable editing time! I stand by my original statement & urge everyone to not to just make a vote, but to stand up & say, "Hey! Leave my fun alone you Commies!" Whatever the outcome, the outcome will effect other MfD's for the rest of Wikipedia! Vote keep or at least userfy! Spawn Man 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Unless you have 4 megs of ram I don't think "going to another site" would ever, EVER, be an issue. Right now I'm in two IRC chat rooms on two different IRC networks, on AIM, watching anime, and while looking for a free gaming site to suggest I played a game of checkers. In this time I've checked my watch list, made some minor edits, and contributed to some discussions on Wikipedia. Holy smokes, what a freakin' concept.

And do not, I repeat, do not make this "Esperanza vs the world". We clearly have Esperanza users who also feel this should be deleted. This is NOT an "us" vs "them" situation, and no one here is trying to delete Esperanza itself or any of the good that it really has done. I have no beef with Esperanza, and it would not matter at all where these pages were; Esperanza, a user page, a WikiProject subpage, doesn't matter, they should still be deleted. This is not about Esperanza, this is about playing games on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What's so bad about having to go to another website to do a separate function on the internet? It's normal for people to visit many different web sites, and it won't cause them to "not come back". For example, I just checked a website to see if an application had been updated, and look, I "came back". I mean, come on, lets be rational here. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well actually the nom did mention that the coffee lounge etc were grey areas. I never mentioned Esperanza vs the world, nor us vs them. Also, I never intended it to seem about the going to another site thing, I was merely stating that Wikipedia's goal should be to have as many users stay on Wikipedia for as long as possible, hopefully not going to other sites. Deleting the games may indeed cause this to happen due to stressed out users not having a calm place here & that people would be forced to go to other games sites. Just my opinion Neddy boy, no need for "Holy smokes, what a freakin' concept..." -- Spawn Man 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• We're not in competition with games sites, because we're not a games site. Whether Wikipedia users also frequent other sites is of no particular relevance. Sorry, I can't muster much sympathy for the poor stressed-out users who are overburdened by the need for opening another tab/window and visiting another site to do their game-playing and socializing. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• You hurt my feelings. *Cry* ;) Spawn Man 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, or keep per Gray Porpoise and Ed. Remember, "Esperanza is an association of Wikipedians dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. In order to accomplish this, Esperanza has a variety of programs that are designed to help editors feel more appreciated, combat stress, and generally lend support to the hard-working people here who need it. Esperanza also strives to be a friendly and approachable community..." Board games are one of the tactics that Esperanza employs to accomplish the aforementioned. And to Ned Scott for your previous statement, remember that not all people are members of a website other than Wikipedia, and that some Wikipedians are minors. In order to have another site host a Wikipedia tournament would not be of interest for everybody, because not everybody lives in the same time zone, and some sites may be out of bounds. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) PS: Edit conflicted 2 times! Bad luck.
  • My apologies for the edit conflict. =) --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand that this is some sort of program or tactic, but it's a violation of non-optional policy. It doesn't matter at all how well-indented it is. Esperanza is not above this, no one is. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Policies aren't intended to be set in stone. They can be revised, change, and interpreted depending on the situation. That's what's great about Wikipedia: rules are flexible, you're allowed to be bold in editing, etc. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If it changes then you can have the games, but we all know there's only a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. In any case, where the policy is at now, and the consensus that backs it up, means that these pages should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and saying "policy might change in the future" is no reason to keep something. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If that's true, then how do we account for the underaged minors who is restricted by their parental units from going to other game sites? (as suggested by bibliomaniac15)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
            • If a kid is restricted from gaming sites then I doubt they'd be allowed to freely edit on Wikipedia when we have big pictures of vaginas and penises, and where our discussions are not censored for children. Is this even an issue in the first place? Not all game sites require 18 or over players, and if a parent wants to restrict their children then it's not our place to help them cheat the system their parents set up. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I find you're making some valid viewpoints Ned, but I also find that your demenor is rather aggressive.... Spawn Man 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Probably because I'm shocked that people think this is acceptable. I think I'll go calm down by playing checkers, (on another website!) -- Ned Scott 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Don't worry Ned, I agree with everything you've said, and disagreed with most of what you've been responding to. I play games like these online as well, and I would like to make the point that lots of people will choose to play games, rather than edit Wikipedia. Relieving stress is all very well, but this sort of activity seems to go beyond stress relief and start to take time away from editing. It would be better to take a real break, switch off the computer, and come back in a few hours or days, much more refreshed and destressed. Carcharoth 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am a member of Esperenza, but have never played the games. On the one hand, the games do violate wikipedia policy. On the other hand, Ignore All Rules is ALSO an important official policy. This MAY be a case to ignore the standing policies for the greater good. As has already been noted by many people, Esperenza is a subcommunity with the stated goal of reducing stress to keep more editors around. One way to do this is through games. These games are carried out on standard pages, and so take up no more server space or processing than any other similarly sized text page. The question is: if these pages keep good editors around longer, and thus INCREASE productivity in the long run, it may be worth not deleting them. --Jayron32 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • IAR is not something you can use to weasel out of valid policy. There is no evidence whatsoever that these games are even effective in their supposed goals. Why would you use an inferior game system when there is no reason to do so? (and don't say it's "for the children" which is a completely absurd suggestion and isn't even true.) If you're going to blatantly violate policy then you better have a strong and valid reason to do so, not any of this "what if" crap. IAR doesn't work like that at all. IAR was set up to prevent people from being overwhelmed or scared off by the large amount of policy and guidelines, not so they can use it as a loop hole to get what they want. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • reply I should add that I would not miss them at all if they were to go. Still, the converse of IAR is WikiLawyering, adherance to policies without regard to common sense. We shouldn't merely vote delete because of blind adherance to policy. The issue should be considered and discussed, not dismissed. I understand the converse arguement to my own above. Again, I am not that strong of a keep vote. I certainly won't miss these games, which I have never played. --Jayron32 07:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Have you even read IAR? I quote: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Is WP:NOT preventing you from improving or maintaining wikipedia? Or are the games preventing you from improving or maintaining wikipedia? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy/Neutral I myself don't play them anymore, but they have been a part of the Esperanza community since before I came to it, and in my opinion it's similar to removing a statue from an old town because people complained about not being able to see past it. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy The project namespace was meant to be a place where groups of editors collaborate on encyclopedic work, not a place to play games.--TBCΦtalk? 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reduce stress of Wikipedians and provide wikicode learning opportunities at the same time - in other words, keep. I wouldn't mind discussing Wikipedia over a nice game of chess. Besides, these pages have another purpose that is not as readily noticable. They involve rather sophisticated wikicoding, to which those who play become exposed. They may find a way to apply what they've learned to the encyclopedia proper. Play is seen throughout the whole natural wild kingdom - young animals play, which prepares them to survive. The most sophisticated programmers sharpened their teeth on programming games, and then were hired by non-game companies to apply their state-of-the-art skills. The same thing might happen here - a tough problem may be encountered for which the solution lies in the wikicode of these pages. Creating tables is one of the toughest activities on Wikipedia, and these pages use and therefore teach table wikicode. I think it's a great learning environment for our editors who want to take a break.  The Transhumanist   10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • At least tag them as historical, so the wikicode is not lost.  The Transhumanist   10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just save a copy to your hard disk, and encourage other people to do the same. MER-C 11:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you (the Transhumanist) can incorporate these into your virtual classroom, and teach me how to wikicode a table, I'll give you tons of chocolate and barnstars! :-) Carcharoth 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or userfy. Not really so conducive, even to the Esperanza spirit. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly?} 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; do not userfy. - BanyanTree 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Userfy, it existed for more than 3 years, it just later became part of the Esperanza group but it still a way to remain down to earth and have just a bit of fun on WP. Lincher 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Esperanza maybe could make their own wiki to house stuff like this? There's nothing wrong with socialising in the right place - Wikipedia is not the right place. --Improv 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom – Gurch 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well this does in a way violate WP:NOT but like someone said, this programs help some editors continue to come back to wikipedia, in the process continuing to improve it. So wouldn't WP:NOT be canceled by WP:IGNORE? Just a comment, I'm not voting either way because it's too soon, we need an official policy on games before anything can happen. - Tutmosis 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But it's more than arguable that these games damage Wikipedia as they distract editors from helping the encyclopedia, no? One cancels out the other, IAR doesn't apply and all we're left with is what it says, pretty explicitly, in WP:NOT. Moreschi 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way voting now will probably cause the "Pokémon test" be used in either 'keep' or 'delete' for every other similar page. That itself violates WP:NOT because "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" and deletions not based on clear policy, encourage democracy. - Tutmosis 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreschi, my main concern is the current unclear policy on games and the effect the result of this afd will have on the community. 'Social networking' to me is interaction with others on a personal level, games are like an boat, they probably less than half way sunk into that category. So deleting something based on interpretation (like I said above) encourages democracy but we don't want democracy, wikipedia needs rules under which people can improve it, not when a certain group of people feel like deleting something or keeping it. - Tutmosis 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe more like the Titanic, IMO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a games website, or anything other than an encyclopedia. That much is clear. I fail to see a problem. You want to play chess et al, you head off to Yahoo, surely? Moreschi 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Chess_websites for chess. Similar places exist for other games. They should all come with a wiki-warning, as those even mildly interested in board games will be lost to Wikipedia for long periods of time!! Carcharoth 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and take a look at RFA. No set policy there: people vote on individual standards - far worse than this, no? Moreschi 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is a completely different process, to me at least. I really don't know how to reply to that. - Tutmosis 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding your other comment above, there is no point arguing here. A proper discussion should take place with a policy coming out of it. That's all I'm trying to get across. - Tutmosis 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per my above comment and WP:IGNORE. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• KILLWikipedia is not a games website.I have no idea how to add a symbol to a previously made game.Cake and Biscuits 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming website. Move off site, but not to user space - it will use more diskspace than userboxes. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, disk space is not a concern. Do not dilute the argument that these pages are irrelevant by demonstrating that you are unaware of Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Carcharoth 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you are DELIBERATELY taking the diskspace is not a concern out of context. It says that disk space is not a concern when it comes to DOING THINGS THAT THE ENCLYCLOPEDIA NEEDS. Disk space isn't a concern if you're trying to make Wikipedia easier to navigate or expand a template. This serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you may be SHRIEKING. :-) The (off-topic) point I am making here is to refute a fairly common myth about "server load". I am not arguing for keeping the pages. What I am saying is that the argument for deletion is that the pages are irrelevant to the encyclopedia, hence an argument talking about "server load" is irrelevant to the deletion argument. It's like saying "this passenger hasn't bought a ticket and should be told to get off the train", and then adding the extra, incorrect and irrelevant argument: "too many people without tickets on the train will cause the train to physically collapse". Hopefully that analogy makes things a bit clearer. Carcharoth 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm...there *is* a reason they call me Shrieking Harpy. I understand what you are saying, but I'm worried less about it's application here than how someone else will use that same justification for some cruft-laden page about fur patterns in Furtopia or something. I prefer to see the whole "diskspace is not a concern" thing as only being relevant in , say, talks about templates. That being said, I'll conceed your point -- the games do not take up that much diskspace. *mutters darkly, goes off to prod an article* --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone tries to use the "don't worry about performance" argument to keep a cruft-laden page, then they should fail, as they are using a strawman argument. On the other hand, if people aren't made aware of the "don't worry about performance" argument, they will continue, in Rob Church's words, to "run about screaming "the servers, the servers!!!" as an excuse to not do stuff", so I try to correct people where-ever I see this misunderstanding. Carcharoth 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Announcement: I posted the issue at the village pump with the intention of getting a clear policy for the issue of games on wikipedia, so that we won't have to quibble on afds and we will know what to do with all the other multiple game pages. - Tutmosis 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, particularly because whatever sensible arguments for having such things to supplement the Wikipedia community, there is no reason for having them on Wikipedia. Host them off-site, and link to them from wherever on Wikipedia off-site Wikipedia community links are kept. People can then paste black tape over the URL bar of their browser, and pretend that they're still playing the games here on the Wikipedia server. Postdlf 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per much of the above. Trebor 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I dont see anything wrong with them, And have read most of the arguments above. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We are here to build an encyclopedia. Let's focus. Joelito (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Joelito has it exactly right. I'm sure these can be stuck on ... some other site. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the main pages, delete the archives, because there's really no need to keep them around. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that they should be considered as part of Category:Wikipedia games, but those ought to be dumped as well. I'm not feeling the "destress" argument; my job can be stressful, but we don't have a bar in the office. – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - one instance here where you are definitely NOT wrong. Moreschi 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LMMBW, some of the pages in Category:Wikipedia games are acceptable, as they involve reading and using Wikipedia (and probably some side editing as well). eg. Wikipedia:Wikistory and Wikipedia:Wikirace. Those games involving Wikipedia should stay. Carcharoth 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:IGNORE X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Having these many pages is excessive, and I wouldn't mind many of them nuked, but there is a definite amount of truth in the keep arguments. What I'm afraid of is the advent of a slippery slope, where any activity that is not explictly and directly focused towards building the encyclopedia is considered "waste" of resources. Unfortunately, I see many users missing the point: what separates Wikipedia from a job is that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and are free to leave at any time if they are unhappy. Since our mission is critically dependent on keeping volunteers, instead of trying to push them away, we need to be taking proactive steps to keep them here instead of wandering over elsewhere. Also, I'm sure that anyone who has been here for a significant amount of time will recognize that it is impossible to edit articles continuously, 24/7, because the brain just doesn't give that much creative output without a "mindless" rest; that's why limited ancilliary activities are not the evil creatures that some portray. However, these pages, as I wrote above, do cross the line, as by their primary purpose are time-intensive activities, and even tournaments, not "water cooler breaks", so I never liked them anyways. As a result, I'll say weak delete, but I am still gravely concerned about any sort of precedent laid here. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all textbook example of what is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree very much with the point above about volunteers and about it violating WP:NOT. But this processes have been around since I remember, to note I never participated in them. It's too quick now to make a decision about such topic. I can bet that most people who do participate in this games, feel betrayed by the community due to the swiftness of the community to destroy something they were part of for such a long time. Proper discussion should have taken place with a consensus that would satisfy both parties. This games seem like they are going to be deleted, which is fine but it makes way for a huge amount of ground for other deletions. Why not delete barnstars and everything having to do with them? They don't help improve wikipedia and encourage "social networking" between users for no benefit of any article. I urge people not to be so swift to judge but work towards a community consensus, we aren't a democracy. - Tutmosis 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Nicely put. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Transwiki to Wikiversity, if esperanza want to keep playing chess, you could teach others how to play in the new wikiveristy department- v:Topic:Board Game Studies. It would fall into wikiversity mission, and it would give use more users.--Rayc 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. I play chess. This kind of interface is not the way to learn how to play chess. You need to learn over the board in real life, or on a proper interface where you can actually move the pieces in real time, and against stronger players, not people who are at the same level as you. Carcharoth 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Many people have been saying that these games can be played elsewhere on the interned. That is not desirable. People who come to the coffee lounge come to have some socializing while they edit Wikipedia. Maybe they come to the Coffee Lounge after having a small dispute with someone else, or they just can't handle the stress of editing. Or maybe they just need a break to get their mind cleared. The Coffee Lounge Games enables editors to have a relaxing time on Wikipedia while doing their editing at the same time. One must note that we Esperanzians do not just edit on Esperanza. We edit on the mainspace like everyone else, we just play the games here so that we don't have to open up too many windows displaying our online games. Would it be that convenient if you were playing RuneScape and editing Wikipedia at the same time?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to tell us that people cannot play games in another website and edit at the same time? Joelito (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well have you tried playing a LIVE MMORPG video-game, talking on the phone with your friends who are playing the same game, and edit Wikipedia at the same time?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, when I want to take a break, I get up and walk around. Get a drink. Get some fresh air. All those things are better than staying in front of the computer and playing games instead of editing/reading Wikipedia. Carcharoth 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer going outside and playing tennis for a break. But you have to consider those people who just like to sit in front of the computer all day and do nothing else.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Get them to stop sitting in front of the computer all day? (And yes, I have sat in front of a computer all day, myself). :-) Carcharoth 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another statement: The main reason people stay on the internet all day is simply to be entertained. People would prefer social networking sites, online games, and some other sites which I would rather not name here... Anyway, having games on Wikipedia can actually attract more users, and keep users on Wikipedia because of the fun and welcoming environment provided by these games.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand this statement, but it's not rational. Personally, I like games, but these games are stupid. Policy or not, it's dumb to play these games with this method. I do think it's somewhat interesting to try to play them in a Wiki environment, but that's just novelty value. I could post naked pictures of women on my user page for the sole purpose of attracting (or retaining) more editors, but I doubt that would be acceptable (but it would likely be more effective in that goal than these games). -- Ned Scott 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you find any public domain images, I would encourage this. ;) - Tutmosis 02:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, exactly how is this negatively impacting upon the project? I've read the arguments above, and I'm not convinced that these pages are the devil incarnate. Lankiveil 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

I completely agree with you. Esperanza is currently encouraging editing in the article namespace as well as participating in Esperanza programs. You must ask yourself "How do these games impose a negative effect on Wikipedia?"--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They're not "evil" and in all reality no one is being hurt. However, what we show as acceptable behavior in one place can effect other things. This isn't about what's "killing" Wikipedia, this is about keeping things in check, before they get out of hand. There are paths that we shouldn't follow, and being a game site is one of them.

Also, I really don't think it helps the keep argument to emphasize on Esperanza's connection with these games. It shouldn't matter if these are sub-pages of Esperanza or not, the idea is the same. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Only less than 1% of all pages on Wikipedia deal with games! What makes you think Wikipedia will become a game site?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, instead of game site I should say "myspace" or something like that. Obviously we won't become a major game site (because it's not really fun or efficient to play games on Wikipedia in the first place). -- Ned Scott 03:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Ed's top level comment "That is not desirable", I must say that it's not an issue. Just in that these games aren't "evil", they're also not "helpful" in keeping editors or relieving stress. In other words, they are not significantly helpful, or even noticeably. Maybe other efforts of Esperanza are noticeable and significant, but these games are not. They're about as helpful as me saying "keep editing and I'll mail you a cookie". "The ends don't justify the means." -- Ned Scott 03:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that playing these games gives users more experience in making tables and dealing with wiki-mark-up?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It could help, but only in very basic fundamentals of Wiki-tables, and no more than what anyone could see in a static example, looking at tables in-use on articles, or just screwing around in their sandbox for 2 whole minutes. Static examples, such as ones that are used at Template talk:Chess position, are far more helpful than these games. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stong keep First of all, how is this either "unencyclopedic silliness" or detractive from the encyclopedia? It sounds like there are a bunch of other people who don't and have never played these games voting to delete them, which is sort of like allowing British citizens to vote for US president--they aren't affected by the outcome, so why should they be able to vote? I see no reason why these should be deleted. Especially, those who say not to userfy them--if you won't allow them on Esperanza, why allow them on user pages? For that matter, why have user pages? Some Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end an online community. There is no encyclopedia without the community; that is why organizations like Esperanza exist. There is no reason to delete these games, especially if the deciding votes come from people who would not be affected by the deletion of the games. The Coffee Lounge, and especially its games, were a major factor in my staying on Wikipedia after some stressful experiences. In my opinion, just about any amount of server space is worth one potentially valuable editor staying on the project. If you delete them here, than somebody should take them on their userpage. If you delete them there, we can find another site. There is going to be a social network on Wikipedia, and there is no reason to potentially drive people off because of unuseful policies. See WP:IGNORE. Alethiophile^{Ask me why} 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, there needs to be some sanity here. Removing these games won't hurt Esperanza, it won't hurt Wikipedia, and it won't drive anyone away. On the other hand, some could see these games as "stupid" or "a waste of time" or... "stupid", and that would do more hurt than help, even if neither are significant. To say that people outside of Esperanza (some Esperanza members have "voted" delete) or who haven't played the game shouldn't have a say suggest ownership issues. Again, the problem with arguments like these is that the games are not effective in their goal; they don't help on any noticeable level other than being a novelty item. Esperanza shouldn't be seen on the same level as these games, it's insulting to Esperanza. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, I've seen a few times in this discussion where you have said that certain keep arguements are insulting to Esperanza. As a member of Esperanza, I don't believe this to be true. While I personally have voted to delete the games, I think that it's best to keep an open mind during this debate, and not feel insulted or embarressed by any opinion. Just one Esperanza member's POV :) Warm regards, Thε Halo ^Θ 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There should be a clear delination here, by the way, to avoid the slippery slope mess. I am about a hardcore deletionist as you can get, and I have no problem with things like WikiRPG, Wikistory -- or even some of the derivatives, like the stuff about poetry and the like. What I do have a problem with -- and if I'm wrong, tell me why -- is the idea that these games, which are clearly not the norm, clearly are not suitable for mainspace, and clearly intentended for people who are clued into Esperanza , are allowed to be here -- or were created in the first place. I have heard 'it fosters community', 'it relieves stress', etc. Does it? Wikistress comes from wanting to own articles, from dealing with idiot vandals, cruft maniacs, and having disagrements over the NPOV of an obscure town in southern Ghana with some other editor who's probably running on pizza and coffee like you are. I can understand the idea of a coffee room and all that. I can't understand how Esperanza can say "we're not special" and then turn around and do all these things and say "Oh, well, this is for Esperanza, so it's a special case." I'm seeing a lot of good faith and I hope the Esperanza people understand that most people -- even us Deletionists -- are not voting this deletion out of spite. But we can't understand it, and it's shocking to us that some of the same people who play these games will comment on people's userspace or act as deletionists. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It still confuses me why other things listed in the Department of Fun, such as the sandbox games have not been nominated. bibliomaniac15 Review? 06:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who nominated this MfD, so maybe I can shed some light on that. The night I nominated this I was going to nominate the others, but there seemed to be some mounting concerns from others that we should discuss this first. Personally, I was fine with listing them in MfD, but I didn't want to put all of them in the same MfD, since some seemed to be in more of a grey area than others. (and there were a lot more than I thought existed at the time.) I was really tempted to nominate more, I really was, but I figured I'd at least see how this one goes. Also, the sandbox games themselves have a notice saying that they are no longer used and editors should use the Esperanza games instead.
  • I considered this a group of games that were outside the "grey area" (since then has become less grey to me) and they all came from the same place, so it made sense to make this the first MfD. Wikipedia:Chess championship and Wikipedia:Hangman have also been nominated since then and a discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy regarding 'games' hosted on wikipedia. So this is not isolated to Esperanza. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong, STRONG Keep Definite keep, as it builds a sense of 'community'. Yeah, Yeah, I know, it dosen't fit into policy. But buzz off, will ya? Humans don't always have to follow policy, and Wikipedia is a human creation. So think, for a second, what you might destroy. A meeting place for Users, a place where we mere Wikipedians can come to and have a rest and a bit of a chat. Maybe a little fun. Maybe in the form of a chess game. And what's wrong with chess? I like chess. Who dosen't? It is a form of socialising. Maybe that's not what you do to socialise, but others do. So just think. And please, just go there. Just once. See a testemony to freindships, wrought and forged across countries. See the legacy. And, whatever you do, don't delete this legacy. Mindofzoo999 07:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia is a damn encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Didn't know these existed before the MfD. They're horrifically unencyclopedic, but I think we have to make small concessions to keep people here. Little fun activities aren't really harming anyone, and if they keep some users interested enough to edit articles, so much the better. Samir धर्म 07:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per WP:NOT. Catchpole 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I dont see why people just see the fun part of the games. Its all part of being in a community and meeting new people. I've personally made many wiki-friends and even became part of some of their projects and collaborations and stuff. And I think many users joined/discovered Esparanza after hearing about the games page and the coffee lounge. And the only reason I still haven't left wikipedia is because of the chess game I had with User:Springeragh. :-). Jayant,17 Years,India • contribs 13:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I don't see them harmful. We can delete the archives as per Fang Aili. I suggest discussing the issue of games in depth at the village pump. -- Szvest 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Strong keep. If you want to be wikilawyer, then I guess we should delete all humorous pages like WP:HOLICTEST, Category:Wikipedia games, Category:Wikipedia humor, as these also do nothing for furthering our basic purpose of building an encyclopedia. Either we should discuss removal of all frivolous unrelated pages, or we should not target a select few. I've got an idea. Let's make Wikipedia the most boring place in the world filled with nerds and information zombies. Well, this MfD is a step in that direction. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, we have to have a little fun.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like it, don't use it. Phileas 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These don't belong here. —Mira 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If people are getting stressed out over wikipedia, they are free to go to other gaming sites and do this kind off stuff. It's called a Wikibreak. Cnriaczoy42 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Distracting, silly, and inappropriate. -- Renesis (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. These do not improve the encyclopedia. By all means create social spaces for Wikipedians on other sites. I understand there's an argument to be made that socializing improves the Wikipedia community, but I claim that having such games right on our wiki also harms us because it gives some users the idea that community is the primary focus of Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If these games aren't on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia wouldn't be fun at all.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - they are unencyclopedic, but esperanza in itself is hardly helping wikipedia in the "buildling an encyclopedic" sense. The point of esperanza is to help wikipedia in the "buildling a community" sense, so if we think that's okay, then we may as well let them do their thing in "building a community" thing. I can't really see anything constructive coming out of these games either...but the same goes for many of the other wikipedia games, chatter that seems to spring up on talk pages, the User Page Help wikiproject, the main wikipedia irc channel (which is almost always off topic chatter)...etc. It's not really doing any harm, so if people find it helpful/relaxing/community-buildling, then let's just let them. It's not like things like this will turn wikipedia into a social network...these games are tucked away in an obscure corner of the wikipedia namespace that someone who isn't already spending time on wikipedia will be very unlikely to find them. --`/aksha 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. --Folantin 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would encourage Esperanzans to organize off-site games from the Coffee Lounge instead. There is no need to host these on wikipedia. Eluchil404 10:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unproductive sillyness. I'm all for enabling community, but this is plain frivolity.--cj | talk 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly. I see more and more people here who spend inordinate amounts of time and effort of things like this, elaborate user pages, and non-project chat on talk pages that do not move the project forward. Try games.yahoo.com. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; see other websites. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.