Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 7, 2005. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on November 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 26 December 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Miscellany for deletion This page and its subpages were nominated for deletion on 18 March 2007. The result of the discussion was to keep this article, but delete certain subpages: please consult the discussion page for details.

Template:Word Association

  • /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Only one word!

People, please follow the rules. You can only type one word consecutively.

Dposse 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • How does this apply to ultra games? If you go to a different part of the grid and reply to something other than your own response it is not exactly the sameJeffStickney 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You can still only add one word at a time to the ulta games. The reason for this is the same in that it allows participation from more people, allowing more and different associations. I always remove all but one of the words that someone has added consecutively to ultra games where I spot it. Thryduulf 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There is some ambiguity as the rule was stated for linear games, but there are 2 different ways this rule could be interpreted for grid games. Does it mean 1)"don't add another word to the grid until someone else has added something to the grid" or does it mean 2)"don't add a word that touches one of your own previous entries"? Or does it mean both? My vote is for the second case as that (no responding to your own entries) seems more in line with the intent of the rule and with the idea of a grid game. JeffStickney 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Thryduulf. Boards will get filled up a lot more quickly if everyone started adding four or five words at a time. Phileas 00:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Games category and moving this

I've added this to the Wikipedia games category. Hope no one has problems with that. However I'm wondering should we move this to it's own project page rather then being part of the sandbox? If you go to the category, you'll notice a number like hangman and chess are on their own project page. I'm a fairly new user but been editing for a while but never really looked into the rules etc much so I don't know if there is any specific requirement to have our own project page but IMHO we are popular and old enough to be worth having our own category. What do you all think? Nil Einne 15:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I like your idea, it would be preferable to leave this in the sandbox. It's fine the way it is I think :-) --HappyCamper 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Tough call. When I thought of adding Word Association, I just wanted it to get seen so people would start playing! Back in July I don't think "project pages" existed (they obviously do now judging by the title of the first tab of the page — either that or I just plain never noticed).
Looks to me that the only difference would be the address. I wonder if the structure to the Wikipedia games may change down the road where there may be more changes yet, so I elect to let things be for now, if just to appease those of us who have bookmarked and linked to the current address :) —Mproud 12:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] red link

Just got here (thanks HC) and don't understand why there are red linked words (like this). --hydnjo talk 18:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good question, hydnjo. "Red-linked" words are words which contain no Wikipedia entry. This is a software feature that is built-in to the site. For example, zpqixmo is red since there is no page with that name (if you click on it, you'll see), but zyzzyva is a page (believe it or not, it's a tropical weevil). Some of the words thrown about in the word association game don't yet contain entries, and so this serves as a precaution to users that if they click, there will be no information available on the subject. (It also alerts the person that he or she can start the page!)
Really, this can be seen on any old page, though probably much less so nowadays, as most Wikipedia pages have been created for the more popular and common subjects. Any old word probably shouldn't have a page, but certainly it makes sense for important and especially related subjects and keywords to be linked to, which may tell you that some of the words in the word association game maybe don't deserve pages. (Obviously this is getting into the philosophy of writing a page, of which there is no one right way, but I would think this holds true for most people.)
Finally, some people link to pages better suited for words, or specifically for the kind of word they were thinking of (there are numerous ambiguous pages, for example) and a small portion of people could very well type the link incorrectly, also which could result in a red link.
—Mproud 13:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well put, Mproud. If anything, I'm waiting to see if someone will experiment with HTML tags here and make green links. (It is, after all, a sandbox) --HappyCamper 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra Association

(copied from Alfakim's talk page)
Hey, pretty neat. One suggestion, how about a rule that red links (like this one) are illegal. I notice that they seem to be tolerated in the other games which seems to defeat the spirit of the game.  ;-) hydnjo talk 19:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
(response moved from hydnjo's talk page)
hey thanks, i hope the game takes off well. this is wikipedia though - make your suggestion on the talk page and then there can be a consensus as to new rules. although it's definitely a good idea, i think i'll add it now. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Who came up with the idea of "Ultra association"? It's great. What will Wikipedians think of next?? :D --HappyCamper 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeh 'twas me. Glad you like it! -- Alfakim --  talk  15:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This ultra association has taken off so well, i'm glad you all liked my idea! and all the funny variants as well... radial and so on. great stuff. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra radial rules question

Okay, in this hypothetical normal Ultra game, the word "TV" was clearly played illegally:

Angels Demons Fire Hose
Halo
Ring TV

In other words, new entries to the table must begin at the top left and work their way down to the bottom right. Only words on the topmost row or leftmost column may be single-associations.

However, in the radial Ultra game, things get confusing. Consider this move:

Spontaneous human combustion Fire Weird Al Yankovic
Krill Kill Gun Water cannon UHF
Dirty Harry Super Mario Sunshine

Is "Weird Al Yankovic" a legal move here? I'd say no; it seems that in radial games, the only single associations one should be able to make would be directly above, below, to the left, or to the right of the main word (in his case, Gun). Am I right? — BrianSmithson 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Beuller? Beuller? As of this edit, I believe that "Gamecube" in the Radial Ultra game is an illegal play. Is it or is it not? — BrianSmithson 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as i always saw it, in the radial game all words must stick as close to the centre as possible without any "fall-back" gaps. i say be bold and delete illegal moves when you see them.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Noted. In this case, there was a legal move to be made where Gamecube would still single-associate with time cube, so I moved it. — BrianSmithson 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the boldness too. In our first attempt at word disassociation, we removed entries that were too, well, rude. But I wouldn't stress over it if the words are played incorrectly - after all, it's a place for people to practise Wiki syntax. --HappyCamper 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Is it possible to make, say, an 8 by 8 grid, and tell people to insert either a black or white square into the grid to make a "circle"? Over time, a circle should emerge - the thing is, people can choose to change the colours of any square, so it would be interesting to see whether collaborating can result in a circle which sort of oscillates...does this even make sense what I am saying? :-) --HappyCamper 05:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a game I'd have to learn by seeing it played. :) Perhaps you could give an example here? — BrianSmithson 12:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Examples! Xhin 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easy Way to Count Words

Hi all, I made this program to make word counting easier. Simply copy the text of a game into it and click "Count", and it will tell you how many links there are. Because each word gets put into a link, this tells you how many words there are.

Download: http://www.liquidcreativity.co.uk/alfakim/WikiMarkupCounter.zip

This should eliminate the problem of "Official Word Counts" and disagreements about the counts. -- Alfakim --  talk  06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When I was doing those "official word counts", I always put it into jEdit and looked at the number of lines... it works quite well because each word goes on a new line. --66.199.28.134 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (really CannotResolveSymbol talk)
Oops, forgot to login --CannotResolveSymbol talk 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Blah. I made the program as much for amusement as for anything else. Here's an alternative to jEdit, for anyone who doesn't have jEdit, or for badly formatted lists.-- Alfakim --  talk  01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think your description belongs here, as the two people who take on a more administrative role in the game read this page, and it was at the bottom of the project page anyways. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word Counter

I have devised a program from those of you who take a more administrative role in the game. It makes it easy to count the words. A normal word counter can't do this because some words, e.g. Duke of York have more than one word. This program works, however, by counting Wiki links. So you can copy a game into it, click "Count", and get the exact wordcount out.

Download: http://www.liquidcreativity.co.uk/alfakim/WikiMarkupCounter.zip

May wordcounts be accurate forevermore! -- Alfakim --  talk  06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(Note: This counts Wiki code so you'll have to edit the section and paste the code into the program. You can cheat by setting the Open Tag to "," and the Close Tag to " " because in the article each word is seperated by a comma and space, but this won't count correctly if any word has a comma in it, e.g. Trinity College, Cambridge will count as 2 with that shortcut).

[edit] Repeated words

Just a reminder: It's against the rules to repeat a word that has already been used. Recently, wheel and musical have been used twice in assorted Ultra games. I've tried to fix things so that they're not repeats. -- BrianSmithson 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ultra games are actually seperate from the main game, so it shouldn't matter if there's a duplication between ultra and normal. Now between different ultra games, you'll have to use your own judgement. --Xhin 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Separate games are separate entities. No repeats within the same GAME should do.JeffStickney 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I use the Google Toolbar's search term highlight capability for this. Before adding a word, I'll type it into the toolbar's search area, and have it highlight all instances of that word on the page. It works nicely. Perimosocordiae 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to archive a game

Following on from the now deleted comment about archiving a game, here is a short how-to. Anyone can archive a completed game once it is complete. I tend to wait a short time (a few hours) so those actively playing it can see how it ended easily.

  1. Go to the archive section and open (in a new tab/window) the most recent archive for the game that has completed
  2. Optionally copy any header (some have things like "this is an archive of an old game, please don't change it).
  3. Start a new page with the same name, but increase the digit by one (e.g. 'Ultra archive 4' to 'Ultra archive 5'.
  4. Edit the relevant section of the game page, and copy the game you are archiving to the new archive page you have started.
  5. Save the archive page.
  6. Start the next game:
    • For the simple games:
      1. Delete the whole previous game except the first header.
      2. Pick a new start word (I tend to choose an apropriate word from a random page. For example the 'Tram' start word was chosen as the random page was an article about a Czech town with a tram system).
      3. Add the new start word in bold at the start of the list and in the header.
      4. Write the word count line: :''Word count 1/400 as of word ''
      5. write an apropriate edit summary and save
    • For table games:
      1. delete the contents of all the cells that are not start words
      2. delete the previous start word(s), but leave the ''[[]]'' so you know which you need to add.
      3. Add you new start word(s), including in the section header - again I tend to get inspiration from a random page.
      4. Optionally, choose a new background colour for the table (make it one where the links are easily readable, and try not to make it too similar to another current game).
      5. Write an apropriate edit summary and save
  7. Edit the archive section of the game page
  8. Link to the archive page you have created below the previous archive for that type of game, using the same format. For radial games the start word is the centre word, the destination words are the ones in the corners, written clockwise from the top left.
  9. Add the short summary line beneath the link to the archive
  10. Write and apropriate edit summary and save.

Thryduulf 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't actually as complicated as this makes it seem!
Ah thanks Thryduulf. It was my comment, and since the game had been archived i felt leaving the comment on here was just a waste of space (and might have led to someone archiving a game by mistake. Thanks for the help PhatePunk 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enigmatic word association

Are (or should) you be allowed to vote for your own gueses?

I didn't at first in the first game, but then changed my mind and did. I've not done so for my first guess in the second game, and have put a comment asking other people not to do so until we decide one way or another. When we do decide I'll put a visible note in the game's intro. Thryduulf 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a vote's a good idea. The game's got to evolve, you know. --Xhin 14:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
erm, is that a "yes you can vote for your own suggestions"? Thryduulf 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That was a "until we decide one way or another" kind of vote, but I guess I can spare all of the gnashing of teeth by just saying no, you can't vote for your own. --Xhin 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I nominate more than one word for a given box? Also I thought maybe it would be fun if there was a minimum number of nominations needed, before voting can begin. Or maybe would that be too complicated ... ? 24.27.61.102 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

More than one nomination is good, and you can vote for as many as you want so I don't really see a benefit in delaying voting. Thryduulf 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Same here. These ones aren't set in stone, by the way. I just picked very dissociative words. --Xhin 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank Ultra Template

Use this when you're making a new game:

{| width=100% border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="3" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: 
#dedeff"
|-<!-- Leave everything above this line alone! -->
<!-- ----------------------------------------- -->
<!--   "|"  begins a row.                      -->
<!--   "||" moves across the row.              -->
<!--   "|-" moves down a row.                  -->
<!-- ----------------------------------------- -->
<!-- ######################################### -->
|- 
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|- 
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||  
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|- 
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|- 
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||  
|-
|   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 
|-
<!-- No more rows - board size 7 x 15 -->
<!-- ######################################### -->
<!-- ----------------------------------------- -->
<!-- Leave everything beneath this line alone! -->
|}

Where it says background, put in the hexadecimal of the color you want to make the table.

[edit] Clarifying the Rules

Can the rules be clarified a bit on this page? There's been more than one occasion where I put a word (specifically on the table-type games) and had it removed because it wasn't played properly. This was because the RULE WASN'T POSTED!

[edit] Help!

This page has become dizzying, even for a longtimer. I need a bit of a helping hand...how do you fill in that white box in Dealer's Choice? --HappyCamper 04:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Dealer's Choice game you add your word in the cell that has only a single letter in it - if the letter is A it must associate with every adjacent word, if the letter is D it must not associate with the surrounding words. You then place an A or D in any cell that is currently empty, as long as it touches at least one other word. An empty cell surrounded by other words is just like any other empty cell, it will be filled in when someone chooses to put an A or D. Thryduulf 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll stick a letter there. --HappyCamper 14:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. There is an already outstanding "D" to be done, new letters can only be added when the previous one is done. Thryduulf 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealers choice almost done-proposal for next one

Whoever finishes this grid should get first dibs on starting the next one. That person should get to choose the starting word and place the "A or D" type for the next game. When this game is done the job of archiving and starting the next game should be reserved for the finisher for up to 24 hours. After that time, if that person doesn't start the next game, then anyone can. In other words whoever finishes this should reserve the right to "deal" the next game. Anyone agree with this?JeffStickney 12:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Maybe someone could add a blurb about that policy on the project page, and include a link here: Archiving Instructions --Perimosocordiae 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New type of game?

What if I have discovered / invented a new type of game for this page? Is there an appropriate place to put it? Is it even appropriate to add it at all? (I don't want to give too much away right now, but let me say that it takes Ultra Word Association to a new dimension!) — Michael J 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it! If it's an association, add it after the Enigmatic game. If you need help, consult the "How To Start A New Series" section. --Perimosocordiae 22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Perimosocordiae. OK, folks, it's in there! Check out the new Cubic Ultra Word Association! — Michael J 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cubic word association? lol...I love this page! --HappyCamper 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's a beast of a game and no mistaking! Mister J, you must be an evil genius! Phileas 06:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You think it's a beast now? No one has even gotten to the spaces that have to link to three other spaces! — Michael J 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sliding doors?

Is not Sliding doors supposed to have starting words across the whole top row and down the left column? Maybe I'm wrong; I never saw one from the start before. - Michael J 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the first stand alone game. The previous one was a psychadelic - someone commented that to be more in keeping with the theme of the film it should be based on two ultra games not two ultra fixed games. 82.163.39.99 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song titles, etc.

Why are song titles being italicized instead of quoted, this is the proper use. I was quoting them and someone told me the convention was everything was in italics. I think it should be changed, it's incorrect everywhere else in WikiPedia, so why should it be different here? Rt66lt 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

What's the policy about words that don't associate/dissociate/fit where they are placed? I know this is just for fun, but it's best when all of the words are correctly placed. This is becoming more of a problem with the more difficult and complex games we have running. For example, the recent addition to the Cubic game [1] doesn't associate with Marten. Maybe I'm just being a stickeler and nitpicky, what do you think? --Perimosocordiae 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If they REALLY don't associate/dissociate then they are illegal moves and can be deleted. However, often the association is obscure, and just because you don't personally see the association does not mean that it isn't there. (Sometimes finding the connection requires reading the article.) While I try to write short sidebar comments for my more obscure entries, there is no rule requiring it. For this reason I would personally reccomend against deleting them.JeffStickney 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I propose a move

This game is too big now, it doesn't belong as part of the sandbox anymore. Put it in Wikipedia: (whatever). Hangman moved, after all. Xhin 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I Don't have a problen with that as long as there is a redirect, but it also doesn't really hurt anything to keep it here. Very soon however this game will need to be split. Otherwise if it gets much busier, edit conflicts will ruin the gameplay.JeffStickney 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start transcluding the individual games? 82.163.39.99 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should make a new page for every game that has been played four times or more? This game's really gotten popular! 162.40.202.149 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. It's been a while since I've played but just coming to the page is overwhelming, there's too much! Granted they all spawned from the original word association, but I think it's grown a little out of hand and hard to follow. --jimmyatic 20:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

What's the rule on the main word association for red links? Are they allowed or not? Whispering 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the Ultra games forbid them, so I'd be willing to say red links shouldn't be allowed in the main game. By linking to an actual page, people who aren't familiar with the word can still associate it. I've actually learned some pretty cool things by clicking on the links in this game. Also, a "blue link rule" makes the game bit more challenging. --Perimosocordiae 23:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Red links are NOT allowed period, and it is stated in the main game's description. The rule is easy to find because the words "red links" are in red. For an entry to count, it has to link to an article. JeffStickney 01:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that rule is listed under the "Ultra" description. But I agree, it should be included for the main game, too. — Michael J 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a blue link rule to the "How To Play" section. Hopefully that will clear things up. --Perimosocordiae 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game #11 is up!

Where will "Bioprocessor" lead? We'll find out in the second double-digit game of Word Association! *insert game show music here* - Kookykman|(t)e 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Game 10 can be found here.

[edit] New page design.

Template:Word Association There it is. The new WA layout, now with subpages! The main WA page is looking ugly right now, I'll have it fixed up in a bit. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice job, Kookykman! I have two concerns, however.
  1. I think the archives should be moved to an "WA/Archives" page to de-clutter the main page.
  2. Having a separate page for each of the deviants seems a bit excessive to me. Perhaps a "WA/Ultra Deviants" page with all of them would be better, like there currently is for the disassociation deviants. Keeping the deviants isolated might reduce traffic and slow progress, especially on the harder ones (i.e., Cubic).
--Perimosocordiae 01:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll move the archives, but I've got to go soon. I'll be able to merge the deviants when I get back. Thanks for the comments! - Kookykman|(t)e 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, all the links on the archive page are in the style of "[[/Archive 3]]" so if we moved the archive to a subpage, we'd have to move all the archive subpages, too. *grumble* ...Maybe a columned list, getting rid of the descriptions? Or something to that effect... - Kookykman|(t)e 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I see the problem. Perhaps if you moved the archive list to a subpage but wrote the links as "[[Word Association/Archive 3]]", that would eliminate the arduous task of moving all of the archives. I'm not sure if this would actually work, but it's worth a shot. --Perimosocordiae 06:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I know much about the traffic and slowing of progress, but I do believe that the Word Association page looks great now and that the Devients having their own separate pages works pretty well. If it does slow things down however, then I would have to agree with Perimosocordiae and his idea of moving all the devients to one page. Otherwise I believe that perhaps the devients and their Disassociation opposites should be placed together on a single page for each devient. That way if any new devients are created, they don't start to clutter up the devient page until it becomes what the Word Association was. But then again, that's just my opinion. --jimmyatic 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelic has two 'e's

What's with the weird spelling of "Psychadelic"? I assume it's misspelt intentionally because this game seems to have gone for 8 rounds without anyone noticing.... Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I've always spelt it with an a then an e. Anyway, a little too late to change now. Xhin 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another new idea?

I have thought of another new idea for a game. But I'm not sure it would be legal because of copyright stuff. How about, instead of Word Association, there was Image Association. A sample round could go like this: - Image:C-lisa1.png - Image:OJSimpsonBillsZone.JPG - - Image:Denver Broncos helmet rightface.png ...


Like I said, probably not legal though. Or is it?

— Michael J 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Images 2, 3, and 4 are fair use, so yeah, technically illegal. This game would work on the Commons though, they only have free images there. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completed Branch

The "sonar" branch is complete. --Gray Porpoise 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skein Association

New game, at long last! --Perimosocordiae 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main word: Vienna needs fixing

It isn't immediately obvious how or when, but the middle of the main branch in the current game has become mucked up. Someone needs to find the last good revision and manually fix it. I'd do it but don't have time. Thryduulf 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the very same minute I was writing this user:24.27.61.102 was fixing it! Thryduulf 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why were we reverted back to "sunrise?" --Tckma 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dakotas

I have changed North Dakota to South Dakota in branch: "Indian reservation", following Mount Rushmore. I believe that placing North Dakota was a mistake, for Mount Rushmore is located in South Dakota instead. In order to fix that I took the freedom to make the adequate correction (luckily the change takes no effect on the continuing chain). If "North Dakota" had in fact been placed in the chain for a valid connection, please state it. Thank you. --Húsönd 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game 14

It'd been a couple days and I need something to occupy me at work, so I archived game 13 and started up no. 14, main word is Reflectance. Go nuts! --Underorbit 18:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game 15

Started Game 15 last night. Enjoy... Underorbit 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipediholic

I changed one slight thing in the last game thier was a pipe link to Wikiholic that was labeled Overdose, I felt for history purposes this would be slightly cunfusing (for instance if someone jumped from Overdose to Wikipedia it would of been a major "huh?" moment), I'm sorry if this ruined the game: it was not my intention, I just wisheed to avoid such a pipelink. Deathawk 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minor Edits

Oops. I made some minor edits yesterday (formatting and counts to the player lists etc.) and neglected to indicate that they were minor. Sorry if that inconvenienced anyone. I now understand the term minor edits better now (thanks to clicking on that link). Still learning Wiki here. :) Mugsiam 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed branches

So would anyone support the idea of moving closed branches to their own section, to keep from having to scroll through them?

Pro: You would be able to find all of the branches that are still open more easily. Con: People would be less likely to read through the closed branches, which sort of dampens the spirit of the game.

Any other thoughts? Just an idea...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underorbit (talk • contribs).

Well maybe, but it would mean that you would also not be able to create spin-offs of those branches. Simply south 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good call. Nevermind! :-) Underorbit 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] oh crap

I don't know what to do, I just got to 400. What all do I need to do othe than archive? // hackmiester (contact) 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game #16

If you participated in Game #15, you know that this hit game is a blast! Be sure to be a part of the action this time as Game Number 16 begins. The main word is none other than... Play-Doh! DannyQuack 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion alert

It seems that a few people have decided to organize a deletion for Dead End, Word Association, and Poetry. I encourage all people who are active participators in these fluorishing Sandbox projects to cast their vote immediately. "Inaction is conspiracy."--WaltCip 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mfd note

This page was nominated for deletion in November 2006, but the nomination gained no consensus and thus the page was kept. (Radiant) 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How is a 29 to 5 keep/delete ratio an example of "no consensus"? I know it's just semantics and that the page is kept in either case, but it seems like a consensus was reached, or at least a pretty strong majority. --Perimosocordiae 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New branch

What do i do if someone has created a new branch of a link that does not exist anywhere in the game? Simply south 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The link does indeed exist and has now been bolded. Underorbit 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aether alignment

When are we going to get the old Psychadelic back? I preferred that to this Aether business. -- Roleplayer 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you define "old psychadelic"? Xhin 19:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're referring to the 10 islands games? Aether has been spun-off into a separate game now, feel free to do that for any psychadelic versions you like. Thryduulf 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial new game

I hope non-admin people are allowed to start new games. Is no.2\Last Word allowed? Also are the rules okay or are they complicated? Have a go?

Simply south 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branches

How are branches started? I just started last game! I kinda came up with weird terms! But anyway, how are branches started? --Addict 2006 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Branches are started by "bolding" the branch word in the original game/branch and creating another heading with Branch: *whatever* (or branch 2 and son on). Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't these branches getting a little out of hand? It seems like people are creating branches every 10 words and so stretching occaisional a little too far. Simply south 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New twists

Do you think we should be able to introduce new features apart from having branches only? Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. A while back, I thought of a new type of game (Cubic Word Association). So I asked and everyone told me the same thing: "Go ahead!" — Michael J 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Has the one in my sandbox been done before? Cheers to 2007! User:Sp3000 06:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget my sandbox, how about a cubic-psychadelic cross? Cheers to 2007! User:Sp3000 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reproposal for deletion

Considering the fact that the Esperanza games were deleted, should not this as well go? I see no encyclopedic value whatsoever. DoomsDay349 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No Way. Yeah, this is of no encyclopedic value, but at the same time, this is in the sandbox, and actually quite a fun thing to do.
As long as nobody is abusing the Word association game, I see no problem with it what-so-ever PYLrulz 03:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
There are way too many arguments and users on our side right now. Xhin 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The branches are getting out of hand

Although I think the reason may be the sheer number of people playing WP:WA now. If you can't, say, come up with a word but had a really good idea for a previous word, and you see that branches aren't restricted in any way, well, get enough people doing that and you'd start to have a pretty big tree growing. I recommend that we restrict branches somehow, ie allowing them to be started only every 20 words. Also, I will be starting a new deviant shortly that will help to siphon some of this madness off. Xhin 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added Clever! to help combat the problem. Xhin 12:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the branches are ridiculous. Why we can't just play one giant game that goes on for thousands of words? —Mproud 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If there was a miscount for a giant game, it could be disasterous. bibliomaniac15 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game #19 Proposal — No Branches

I elect to do without branches for game #19. Let's keep it simple.

No branches. What do you think? —Mproud 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - No more branches until we complete the open games and clear the board. Knaw 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that and no branches period in game #19. —Mproud 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for no branches as well. I mean, really. The game needs more pacing to it. --Addict 2006 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Perhaps making the main (and only) chain longer (say 600 or 700 words?) could be fun. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I just closed the main thread of game #18 with the 400th word Beatles. Two smaller branches remain. Once they're completed (I suppose they ought to), I'd love to create a new game with a goal of say, 1000 words. —Mproud 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not instead limit the number of branches? Simply south 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be easy enough that even Grandma can play. This is supposed to be a simple game. Let's keep it that way. —Mproud 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a WA game would go way faster without branches. Otherwise, people would inadvertently go overboard on a limit. --Addict 2006 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be no branches and the usual 400. --Addict 2006 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There have been 19 games in about 19 months. How about on the first of the month we just archive and create a new game for every month? (Maybe game #19 can start now and go until the end of March.) —Mproud 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Alright, I archived Game #18 and started Game #19. Based on the consensus people seemed to have regarding branches, Game #19 instructs players not to make branches. I clarified a little how to play and put the game directly in the section "The Game". I want to make this as easy as possible so people who are new to Wikipedia will want to play, and I think this is a HUGE step.

The starting word Planet of the Apes was chosen randomly by clicking on the "Random article" link.

I set the limit to 1000 based on the number of words we had in Game #18 (well over 1000). Plus I think #19 will go quicker without having any branches. If people still feel this is overzealous, I have no problem with changing the number, though I'd advise you to wait a tad while to see how fast this goes.

Also, I really think we ought to get rid of the players section. It seems quite excessive, and is detracting from the game. The project page is large enough as it is. I don't want to delete it without bringing it up, however, so I want to ask you all for your input on this matter. —Mproud 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings just to let people know

I've seen conflicts with word counts and stuff. First of all, please watch the count (by putting #th word comments every 10 words, and put them in the appropriate place. For instance, don't clumsily stick a "10th word" comment at word number 11.). Also, don't update the count ahead of time. That is, if the previous word was #44, the next person must update the count to #45 - they CAN'T jump right to #46 or whatever.

This is just to avoid any confusion in this potentially large game. If it does happen though, I'll be in check. --Addict 2006 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 02:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we definitely need to enforce the rules around here. People have been going rogue. --Addict 2006 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Word counts are one thing, NPOV is another. I have been seeing, on occasion, associations which are clearly against Wikipedia's policies (e.g., Ellen Degeneris was associated with "Pure Evil" as was another person). Maybe somebody does associate these people with evil, but that does not make it appropriate here. This kind of thing needs to be removed.Squad51 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word count

If i have set the minimum word count as 50 on one game and someone decides to do 30 in a branch, should i change the rules or should i bring the branch up to 50? Simply south 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehh. Doesn't work here. We are not doing branches in this game and it was the final decision. --Addict 2006 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but it does in WA2. Simply south 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with rules

Can anyone help to clarify the rules i have set out for The AA? It is a sort of Ultra spinoff. Simply south 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What sort of help do you need? Knaw 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose i just thought they were technical or are they quite clear? Once again i am taking this far too seriously. Never mind, my example should be clear enough....... are they clear or should i just say similar to Ultra?

Simply south 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had another read of the rules and they seem clear enough - if the column letter and the row letter match, the associated word must begin with that letter. I'll be continuing to play. Knaw 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible deletion of archives

Well, it looks like the quarterly deletion nomination for the Word Association game is upon us. While I can't see an AfD going as far as to delete it, these are getting somewhat exasperating now. So I have an idea. One of the reasons people give for nominating the game is that there's so much stuff that goes with it, archives, games that people have stopped playing, etc. So how about we try streamlining the whole of WA by getting rid of the archives and unplayed games, like Cubic and Enigmatic? And, as recommended by User:Jreferee has suggested on my talk page, 'each game archive and variant should have a clear statement at the top as to (i) how the game pertains to writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia and (ii) how it is directed only towards people who are active participants in the Wikipedia project. They also should (iii) cite WP:UP#Games as a basis for being permitted on Wikipedia.'

Maybe if we did this we'd stem the flow of regular deletion nonsense. Any ideas/opinions gratefully received. Phileas 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I would agree to deleting unplayed games. I'm not sure how your rationale system would work though. Any blanket rationale would work in any case. bibliomaniac15 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete the archives except the most recent 2 or 3 (stretching it a bit, early ones if possible don't delete but if they must go then thats that). I thik i'm not sure on the Ultra game and its numerous spinoffs (including the one i recently started). Maybe we should vote on what stays and goes. Is there any way this could link to Wikistress? Simply south 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a lot of things have been deleted without a consensus. The template for other games was deleted (that was never talked about) and the other games appear to be gone:the ones "not played" were talked about, but some of them were still being played. Squad51 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else think that the deletion process went too far? The deleting admin said delete the archives, but it appears that someone took the (unavailable) liberty to deleting the spinoffs and the branches, making Word Association... well, boring.--WaltCip 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus to delete the other games. I'm starting up a new Word Disassociation, with a link on the WA's main page.Squad51 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Word Disassociation wasn't really exactly what I meant. The branches, however, added an element of fun to the game. The others, I could give or take, but I think the branches are important. Many thanks anyway.--WaltCip 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That actually looks like it happened before...the last game had a ton of branches; I'm not sure who decided this one wouldn't have any but I think it's unrelated to the latest AFD round.
Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed that this whole suggestion meant that some over zealous admin deleted all the sub games. From what I can gather it looks like it was an error. I guess we can start new Ultra/Fixed/Reverse Radial games up and get the whole thing back on track before long. Phileas 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a day or two then I may start another one of these. I thought the Reverse Radial game (last one) was getting interesting; the Ultra game was flying right along, too.Squad51 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeating words

In this game alone, I've reverted three times due to people repeating words, trying to put down Aqua twice, Zipper twice and just now they repeated Tetris. I need to put forth a clear reminder here - don't repeat words that have already been used in the game!

I'm sorry if I came off as really harsh, but this has to be said. Freqrexy 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I really did not know tetris had already been used. Simply south 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how to stop unintentionally repeating links? Simply south 10:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that we're now deleting several words because somewhere back a word got repeated and nobody noticed it. I think it's gotten a bit nitpicky; I can see if it starts a chain of repeats (I remember one which went "Back in the USSR", "The Beatles", "Abbey Road", etc.), but I think if one word gets repeated it ought to be left unless one of these chains gets going again. I mean, come on, you've got 500+ words, it's going to start getting easier and easier for a word to get repeated. Besides, someone might associate something else with it (eg, "Sgt. Pepper" instead of "Abbey Road"). Plus (the word "Aqua" for example), what if one person uses "Aqua (color)" and another uses "Aqua (band)"? Squad51 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone aware that "CD" has been played twice, way back towards the beginning?Squad51 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've got to be kidding me!

They deleted the variants? I can understand deleting the games that weren't being played anymore, but this has really gone too far. After all, the game's already been nominated for deletion three times and has been accepted all those times. What's wrong with taking a little break from wikipedia, honestly? Should organizations like Esperanza and things such as BJAODN be deleted simply because they don't contribute to the encyclopedia? They DO! It's a community as well as an encyclopedia! How did they get deleted, anyway? The overall consensus was that SOME variants ought to be deleted, and SOME archives ought to be deleted, not ALL of them, and any evidence relating to any of them. Seriously, exercise some common sense once in a while. Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it looks like it was a mistake on the part of the admin who closed the AfD. Yeah, it's pretty (read: incredibly) sucky. I say we just start the popular variations up again. Phileas 02:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they're just whittling it down so they can say "look how small that WASS is now, it serves no purpose, let's delete it".--WaltCip 11:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. Well, fight fire with fire I always say...Especially whoever it was who started Word Association No. 2 - please restart it? :-) That one was fun... Underorbit 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Somebody's deleting the subgames again!Squad51 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What's happening? I've really been looking forward to the other games. Whoever's doing this is not doing his/her job right. Anthon 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Word association serves a purpose in line with the general purpose of the sandbox. It is appropriate. I will defend it at MfD if it is taken there. A dozen weird variants and many archives, however, do not serve this purpose, nor do they offer any evident assistance in building an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a social network. It would be better to encourage people to click those links and work on the articles. Sandbox: a test space. Not a games host, a discussion board, a social network. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game 20

Couldn't we reduce the limit of the word count to say 600 next time? Simply south 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I think we could bring branches back too? Maybe limit it so you can only have one open at a time or something so it doesn't go nuts? Underorbit 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I wanted it limited to 400 in the first place. --Addict 2006 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted again

Well, the spinoffs were deleted again, by an admin named "JzG", who him/herself is polluting wikipedia with unencyclopedic nonsense like Wikipedia:Rouge_admin If word association has to go, lets get that garbage deleted too. 70.113.215.93 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page, but I'm posting it here too in case your IP changes and you don't see it. I noticed that you put an MFD notice on WP:ROUGE. Please be sure to follow the rest of the MFD directions here. Part of the process involves saying why you think the page should be deleted; if I were to try to complete the process for you, I wouldn't have a reason and it would simply be a procedural nomination. An MFD for no listed reason would be extremely unlikely to succeed. TomTheHand 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
They should not be being deleted. There was no decision to delete the spinoffs, only the archives. If this administrator is doing this, they are doing so because they either don't understand this, or are doing it without authority. I posted a comment on their usertalk. If he/she deletes them again, I will find an appropriate person to complain to. This person has no authority to just delete without any kind of process going on. Squad51 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, this is a load of crap. Looks like there's an excess of bullied-as-a-child traffic wardens in the world and they're taking out their ire on the sandbox. Time for an extended Wikibreak, methinks. Phileas 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware I was bullied as a child, and if I want to exercise my control freak tendencies I can do so by enforcing a group policy on my domain or some other such nonsense. Actually I think I've grown out of such things by now. Even my children have, come to that. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In reading the discussion of proposed deletions, I only found consensus (if that) to delete archives and rarely played games. Nowhere did I find consensus for deleting popular, active spinoffs like Ultra (or its spawn). Thus, I deem the deletions of the aforementioned games by User:JzG (Guy) to be unfortunate, uncalled-for, and wrong. Anyone agree with me? Anyone willing to put an end to these shenanigans? --Perimosocordiae 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7ESandbox_Word_Association_0451.html"