Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Chess

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Almost a tie vote. Woohookitty 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

• I vote to keep this section. Projects like this foster the community spirit that is the very reason why Wikipedia exists. - Rajesh 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Strong keep. See the precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship, which was kept. It's a reasonable community-building activity. It's not just "playing it online" - as doing it elsewhere would defeat the whole point of community building. The point is to strengthen community relationships. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
• Comment: The very fact that there is plenty of free (and better) chess online proves the desire for Wikipedia community-building. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. (besides, I'm in the middle of a game right now!) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Keep Comment I am very much in favour of the chess championship which is a semi-official wikipedia tournament. I think that is fine, and should definitely be encouraged. I didn't have a problem with the sandbox-games before, but it seems to be getting slightly out of hand. There are nine games going on right now. I am divided, on one hand it is like "what's the harm", but also if you use the wiki solely for playing these games, why not do it on wikicities? If you want to play a friendly game with another editor, fine, set it up in your user-space, but having a centralized place to play from, well..., as I said I'm divided. Ohh, and also, can we merge the three other VfDs into this one calling it Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox games or something, it would be much more practical. gkhan July 4, 2005 17:26 (UTC)You know what, I change my mind. The slippery slope argument is a weak one and if/when it gets out of hand we can stop it then. Let people have their harmless fun for the time being. gkhan July 4, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
• Neutral: – I would like to have it here (75%-keep), but if the server load increases too much, then I think it should be moved to wikicities. I've never used the wikicities though. How do we measure the server load? User:Nichalp/sg July 4, 2005 18:28 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
• Move & Projectfy at Wikipedia:Department of fun, with related games (below), unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
• Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Keep - "strain on server resources" is not a criteria for deletion. As long as "Department of Fun" is acceptable, no grounds for deletion. Guettarda 5 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

  After reading the mailing list I realise that there are legitimate concerns surrounding these issues. Nonetheless, they should be decided upon as policy issues, not via VfD. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

• Strong delete. WP is NOT a game server! — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

• Keep. Probably would have voted to delete had this been entirely new (like I have done with the checkers counterpart), but this has established itself in the sandbox, is good for community building and should not be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
• E2 - E4. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Neutral. Some of the logic offered in connection with votes here and at the other game-related VFD's makes me wonder: If the purpose of Wikipedia is only to create an encyclopedia (which is the starting point for many votes) then could the following pages fall into the "not relevant to creating an encyclopedia, pulls too many resources, creates extra RC patrol work, and therefore must be deleted" category? The entire Wikipedia:Department of Fun for obvious reasons. Wikipedia:Reference Desk because they can look it up in the encyclopedia, or "go to another (reference desk) site". All user pages becasue it doesn't matter about the users, it's about the encyclopedia, and if they want to talk about themselves, they can do it at a private hosting site. All user sandboxes because they can draft it in the article space or go to an outside editing site. Featured pictures/picture of the day because pictures should be about articles and not about pictures on their own, and anyone who wants to look at random pictures "can go to another site." The entire "Wikipedia:" namespace because we're here to write articles, not to read policies. Wikimania 2005 (deleted and cancelled) because if everyone stays home they can spend that time writing articles rather than socializing. RfA because we have enough admins, and voting for candidates takes time away from article writing, plus there has to be another Wikipedia-administrator electing site out there. RfAr because the time spent disciplining users should be spent writing articles, and if they want to discipline users, they can go to another Wikipedia-user disciplining site. RfC because if we spend all our time writing articles, then we won't have time to waste commenting. Recent Changes because RC-patrol time could better be spent writing articles. How to donate money because by the time we've deleted everything above, we won't need donations anymore, because the project will be dead. -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 05:09 (UTC)
• Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikipedia:Wikigames has been redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not like it's sucking up a lot of resources, nor is it in the way, nor is it in any regards detracting from the Wikipedia. It's not disruptive, etc. etc. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 13:52 (UTC)
• Delete. As per my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers, this should not be in the sandbox. Angela. July 7, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Delete. A) This is the Sandbox, by its very nature anything here should be ephemeral - it's wiped at regular intervals, this should IMO extend to subpages. B) This chess game thing shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway, it's in no way encyclopedia-related. Bryan 7 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Then by that logic, let's get rid of BJAODN and the Department of Fun, too! I'm sure it's not related to Wikipedia at all! -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

• Delete or at least move: there is no way anything in the sandbox is supposed to last through a cleaning cycle, and this includes any sub-pages. If the Department of Fun are so keen to keep it, they should justify moving it under their project and promise to police it to ensure it stays within sane limits. My preference would, however, be for it to move to Wikigames. --Phil | Talk July 7, 2005 07:33 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I love the idea of wikipedians playing chess together, I think that it makes more sense to do this at Wikicities or somewhere similar. I feel faintly hypocritical about this, having had such fun with European Toilet Roll Holder but I do see a significant difference between the relatively short-lived building of a nihilartikel and the running of a continuing suite of games. My fundamental problem with this is its location. Would the participants feel aggrieved were this cleared as part of routine sanbox cleaning? I imagine so, and thus conclude that it is not appropriate for the sandbox. I would also have less of an issue with it were it possible to watch just recent changes to the main article space. —Theo (Talk) 7 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with comment made by User:Angela. Seeaxid 7 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
• Keep. The games section does absolutely no harm to the site. Statements that, "they make the site run slower and use bandwith" are full of it. Yes, every page takes some bandwith, but Wikipedia has about one new page every minute or two. So if you are going to claim that the pages make the site slower etc., then you need to realize that in making that statement you are also basically saying "Oh, let's remove the option to start new pages because they slow the site down and take up bandwith." Open your eyes, the site is growing, but does anyone ever make a large complaint about the site slowing down. Seven pages have been created since I began typing this, but I find no difference in the site speed, even on dial-up. So stop fooling yourselves. The games do not harm the project in any way. They are there for the benefit of the users who choose to use them. If you don't want to use them then don't, that's fine with me, but don't ruin other people's good times just because you don't see how it benefits you. Maybe it benefits them and allows a break from the pain it sometimes is to contribute and edit Wikipedia. -Hoekenheef 7 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
• delete - agree with Angela. -- nyenyec ☎ 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
• Delete and take it to Wikigames. --Tabor 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

No that's not the point. There's no where else you can commit to community-building. "Other websites" do not have a en:wikipedia community. Let's delete BJAODN too, by that logic. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

• Yes, please continue the project, but Move out of the sandbox. That is definitely not the place for it; and most keep votes say nothing about the location of the pages. As for Wikicities' Wikigames... it sort of misses the idea, which as I understand it is to play games with other wiki editors without leaving the comfort of en:wp (watchlists, talk pages, and all). +sj + 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Delete, go elsewhere if you want to screw around. 217.43.8.74 8 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Comment. 217.43.8.74 only has 3 edits. Furthermore, it's not "going elsewhere to screw around", because it's to build relations with other editors, so "going elsewhere" wouldn't work. Building such relations indirectly contributes to a more cohesive, consistent encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

• Strong Keep its not different than the wikipedia quiz thing or other games. Why delete these its community building. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is an argument I just wrote up arguing for the survival of WikiChess. It responds to the letter Angela cited, which can be found at here. My letter can be found at User:Flcelloguy/Chess, where you can leave comments not related to the VfD.
• Keep Why delete these its community building. Zmehmed 20:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has expanded ever since its conception over three years ago, and we currently have hundreds of active members, each offering his/her contributions, building up the diversity and greatness in Wikipedia. With the growing usage of the site, though, tensions will inevitably amount. Tempers will flare, and edit wars will begin. Users with no other place to turn will vent their frustration on other Wikipedians.

While the above may be an "Armageddon" prediction, the truth is that Wikipedians need places to relax and unwind. WikiChess, currently located in the sandbox, is one of the multiple sites for WikiFun. Incidentally, Wikifun is an extremely popular game that has now drawn a plethora of attention, and multiple users are playing it as we speak. WikiChess serves a similar purpose to the many other Wikipedia pages which serve to entertain or challenge. BJAODN has kept hundreds of Wikipedians laughing for months; the WikiFun tournament has frustrated- and amused- users for a long time, and X-treme deletion has lasted through its own x-treme VfD. What distinguishes WikiChess from the other entertainment and amusement pages?

Indeed, WikiChess is no different from WikiFun or the other entertainment pages. It serves to keep Wikipedians involved, and is a great place at the end of a long day of RC patrolling to meet with fellow Wikipedian chess enthusiasts. In fact, chess has been scientifically proven to stimulate the mind- allowing better editing and writing! Seriously, though, WikiChess has done no harm- there have been no recorded incidents or complaints that it impedes with normal Wikipedian editing and Wikipedia operations.

As to WikiChess being in the sandbox, it can- and should- be moved to a Wikipedia: page of its own soon. It has attained an honored status similar to that of WikiFun, and is deserving of its own nameplace, just like the many other Wikipedia: pages which serve to keep us amused.

To respond to the concern that WikiChess will draw more users who will only play chess: the more users, the better! We currently have a dire situation where most people who create an account do not stay long-term. Are we to chase away potential editors, writers, and Wikipedians when they stumble onto our pages? Besides, there will be no influx of people who join Wikipedia solely for the chess- as argued in your letter above, there are much better gaming sites that offer free chess. People only interested in chess will ultimately end up in those sites.

Erik also makes an argument that once the games have developed, it will clutter up the RC patrolling. Will one move per game per day really make a huge difference? Do people not respond to the challenging questions at WikiFun, and do people not add more nonsense to BJAODN? The extremely small number of edits to be performed would hardly make an impact, and personally, when I am RC patrolling, do not mind these edits. Besides, it certainly does not require much effort to look at the edited page and determine that it is a chess game.

In addition, the above letter also argues that the page clutters the Wikipedia: namespace and also will serve as a reflection of Wikipedia. One additional page will not clutter the namespace, and one page (out of over 600,000 articles alone) will not change the reflection of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, was, and will be a free-content encyclopedia, albeit with policies, user pages, and other community-building pages.

Finally, I do share the concerns with Erik that there will be an abundance of new game pages. However, the matter at hand is the fate of WikiChess, and the other pages should not affect this vote. A new policy limiting the start of new pages, as proposed by Erik, should be a completely different debate irrelevant to this one.

Thus, I urge everyone to rook- oops, I mean keep- and save this noble WikiGame. Thank for taking the time out of your busy Wiki-Schedule to read this, and happy editing!

Regards,

Flcelloguy --Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 8 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• As per my comments on the other vfds, delete this until we come to some kind of concensus as to which particular games we could like to keep. A small number is ok, but we can't just keep adding them ad hoc. Enochlau 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons above. Eric119 20:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because its the only interesting thing to do on the Sandbox next to looking at your new signature. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _C 15:49, 12 July 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.