Talk:The Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disambig?

Why does The Game (disambiguation) redirect to The Game rather than vice-versa? I have the feeling that some great admin is going to tell me some obvious Wiki-precedent that I don't know about, but I wanted to post this in the chance that this may be a mistake. Candent shlimazel 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think, basically, there's no overriding topic that means "The Game" more than anything else, which means that the disambiguation can safely sit at "The Game" without loss of generality. Foo (disambiguation) is only needed when there's a particularly dominant meaning of Foo (e.g. A Tale of Two Cities versus A Tale of Two Cities (disambiguation); the former being the book, the latter pointing to other uses). Kinitawowi 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

Melancholy inquery as to the status of The Game (game)... any progress? --64.238.187.244 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up at school. Thank god that BS article is gone.

128.12.186.192 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very much not a small game made up by people at school. It is very widely played. I have successfully talked to multiple people who have no linking factor whatsoever about The Game, and they knew which game I was talking about. It is of note, even if you do not think so. It tells us a certain something of the mindset of modern society, displaying an appreciation of pointless but entertaining little things. The fact that I have said "pointless" does not negate my point, as it could be said in the same way that video games are pointless, and yet they are most definitely of note.

--129.215.45.67 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly people are utterly determined to ignore the comment tag that was placed at the top of this page. I therefore quote it in full: Please do not add "the game (game)(mind game)(intangible game)(memory game) etc.", it was only recently deleted, see this page's discussion page or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination). The article is gone. The Game was ruled non-notable and non-verifiable, and therefore not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. And that includes attempting to recreate it by discussion on this talk page. Get the hell over it. Kinitawowi 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty dumb to make such a big deal about having this article removed. Whether people like it or not, "the game" is real to a lot of people, and it brings many people joy in a unique way. I think this page should not only stay up, but should be elaborated on and moved to the article section to make it easier for people to view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.60.149.131 (talk) 06:17, March 14, 2007 (UTC)

• The article was deleted. It was declared unsuitable to be included in Wikipedia, and the article space was salted to prevent further recreation. If you want that thing back, work on a write-up in user space (that will satisfy all the issues raised in the above-linked AFD discussion) and recommend it to WP:DRV. Until then, it isn't fit for Wikipedia and it shouldn't be recreated, even if by discussion on an article talk page. Kinitawowi 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some might consider it unfit for Wikipedia, but many of us (probably many more) think that it is. What's the problem with leaving it alone? What harm does it do? Why is there so much pressure keeping it off the site? It's really quite silly, The Game is quite notable, and deserves an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.93.238.196 (talk) 02:57, March 18, 2007

• Did you even read the AFD discussion? It isn't notable. It fails WP:RS and WP:NOTE. It has no authoritative verifiable sources. It's a cruft magnet. Without a properly verifiable source, there's no way to identify the ruleset, which means that each and every single crappy rule variant that anybody can think of was being shoved into it (probably the single biggest reason why it's gone). It got so ridiculous that I'm working on a write-up for WP:LAME. That's why. Kinitawowi 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First, there was, as far as I can tell, no notice on the top of the page at the time of this discussion, and I've gone through the history. So unless someone was somehow broadcasting a notice onto this page without editing it, complaining that the notice was ignored is silly, there was no notice to ignore.

Second, saying it fails notability doesn't take into account that notability is hugely controversial right now, and has been under a great deal of discussion of late (and that the last time The Game went into AfD it was far different from when it had passed) and may be returned to essay status.

Lastly, there is/was a verifiable source which did identify the rules. In fact, for a large period of time, that was what the article for The Game included, just what the Belgian newspaper said. The rule variants were deleted as they were found, and by no means should have been a reason for deletion. No one would advocate deleting any article because it got defaced frequently (at least, not and have their argument fly, otherwise Steven Colbert would control the fate of wiki). That's an argument for protecting the article, not deleting it. Darquis 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "comment at the top of the page" that I referred to is, as I intended to imply, commented out - it's only visible in the page's edit box. (Clearly that was too vague a provision to resolve this, for which I apologise. The same comment appears twice on this article's actual page - and people still continue to ignore it.) It failed notability at the time the ruling was made, and as far as I can tell nothing has been done to improve notability other than to make the notability/attribution/whatever criteria more confusing; fuzzy rules are still rules. And it failed verifiability and RS at the time the ruling was made as well, because of a stipulation requiring multiple non-trivial sources (one newspaper article alone wasn't enough to satisfy that, and the non-triviality of that source was/is in question - and that's before the considerable effort expended by a large number of people in attempting to locate additional sources, and disregarding some stated efforts by certain groups to attempt to create sources...). As the DRVs have suggested; if somebody wants this back they're welcome to work on it in userspace and propose an improved version for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Until then, feel free to contribute to User:Kinitawowi/The Game (LAME). Kinitawowi 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)