Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 : Keep/Delete/Redirect/No Consensus. In the future we should avoid omnibus deletion votes such as this, and bring the individual pages up seperatly. The !votes were about 1:2 D:K, but MFD is not a vote. Wikipedia is of course an encylopedia foremost, but to a lesser extent is a community. Some of these pages focused too much on the community aspect, but some blended the encylopedia with the community much better. To that end I hooked up my consensusometer and came up with the following. To prevent another shotgun approach to this debate, and wish to contest it, please bring any of the deletes to WP:DRV one by one, and relist any keeps as their own mfd's (page by page) after a few weeks. Now as to the outcome:

  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/The Or Game
    Deleted (note it was up for PROD as well).
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Dead End
    Kept
    • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Dead End/Archive1
      Deleted
    • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Dead End/Archive2
      Deleted
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry
    No consensus--Default Keep
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers
    Redirected - Left as a softlink to Wikia
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Game of Go
    Redirected - Changed to softlink to Wikia
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Storytelling
    No consensus--Default Keep
  • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games
    Kept (as a listing of the active pages)

Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games

For a lot of good reasoning, see the MFD for Esperanza coffee lounge games. Basically, these detract from spending time on what Wikipedia really is for, they are unencyopedic, and I find the argument for Word Association that "it helps teach how to link and you can learn alot from links" very feeble. Not to mention some of these are defunct and are basically a waste of space. DoomsDay349 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in addition, these includes all the games linked on the page and all archives of those games. There're too many to list. DoomsDay349 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: If you choose to delete these games, I will gladly take them on WikiSocial. I hope that you choose not to, but if you do, I'm sure a few dozen people want the history around. -- Chris is me 05:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The Word Association page directly benefits the project, as each submission links to the site. Many, many pages have been edited and created. Please consider WA as distinct from the other games featured in the Sandbox. —Mproud 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. → crazytales (t·c) 02:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The word game in the sandbox do little harm. They mostly involve brief contributions to list of words and as such take little time away from editing elsewhere. The games can be informative when someone follows a link because they have no knowledge of the previous word/topic. The occasional distraction is no bad thing and probably helps to calm tempers around the project. It may not be necessary to keep so many archives of past games however... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • On a different side of the coin, the games do little good. DoomsDay349 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • As an unrelated remark- nominating the sandbox games for deletion on Christmas Day! Now that is a new way to spread seasonal cheer... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC
        • Bah humbug! Indigestion, indigestion... :) Seriously though, if that actually offended someone I'm sorry but I just happened to notice it today. DoomsDay349 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I am aware that there are a substantial number of editors who believe there should be some forum for game-playing on Wikipedia. I'm not going to address that here, as I don't think its actually germane to this MFD. Instead, I'll point out that the Sandbox itself says that it is for testing and that "this page is automatically cleaned every hour". I view the existence of persistent sandbox subpages as a weakness in the capabilities of the automatic refresh and not a desireable feature, regardless of their content. Serpent's Choice 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps the games, or at least the W.A. need a new home then. —Mproud 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Games, Delete Archives per WJBscribe. These pages have no harmful effect to the rest of the encyclopedia or to its editors. Participating in these games require only a small amount of your time. All of the games have some sort of benefit to the Wikipedia editors or the articles they create. For example, Word Association increases the editors' awareness of articles that they never even read before. The game exposes writers to articles of different topics they were never even interested before. On a side note, the archives are unnecessary, and should be deleted.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't even point this out, but per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Tell me, what does it mean to play games with other people? I believe that's called social networking. WP:NOT makes no distinction over whether you network for two minutes or two hours. It simply shouldn't be done on Wikipedia. DoomsDay349 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I thought it should be noted in case people want to refer to the debate that the Word Association games were recently subject of an MfD (on Nov 13, 2006). The result was no concensus. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Archives, do whatever you like to them, but the game itself, keep it, for a lot of the reasons listed abovePYLrulz 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. Does the No Fun Brigade never rest? I'm glad I don't have to work for these people... lots of good editors play these games, I guess, although I don't. The mind needs a rest at times, you know. By the way, when I work on the Wikipedia, I have a humourous figurine on top of my monitor. May I keep it, or should I remove it when I edit the Wikipedia? Because, you know, God forbid anyone should have fun while working on the project. Herostratus 03:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You should be able to entertain yourself just fine off-wiki. If you come to an encyclopedia for fun, you have issues. DoomsDay349 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a question for you Dooms. Havent you ever looked through some of the page (especially when you got some good lists going on), and clicked on a few links to pages that, had you not come across them on the Word Association game, you would of never came across? Heck, theres even some stuff that, through this game, I never would of thought of associating with, or something I never knew before. In a way, as long as it isnt abused, this page can sometimes actually serve some kind of encyclopedic purpose, even if its just finding out stuff you can associate with and learn.PYLrulz 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If I had wanted to learn something I would have simply put it into the search box. I wouldn't go play a word association game to learn some random things about random articles. To answer your question,no I have not done so. DoomsDay349 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying, think of something, go to the Word Association page, find it, and look at it, im saying your just filing through, see something intresting, and going to the article.PYLrulz 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Two words. Special:Random. Same task without the networking. DoomsDay349 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
              • True, but thats just throwing a dart with a blindfold on, sometimes, its fun filing though the list to find an article that catches your eye.PYLrulz 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • If you're looking for a topic you like, you could just search or go to a category, or even Reference Desk. DoomsDay349 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • The Sandbox Games do that with a fun twist to it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of which the fun twist is social networking, which is expressly forbidden. DoomsDay349 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, what better way to know other wikipedians to maybe find someone to help you with a certain project on wikipedia. Personally, I really dont get how someone could be against this. Stuff like this where you got fun involved can lighten up the mood, especially if someone is pissed or something.PYLrulz 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole Wikipedia is social networking! Aside from the other games, the Word Association page does not have a winner, loser, and barely even has a finish. I argue that the page is not that much different from collaborative efforts and featured articles. It gets people thinking about pages in another manner. —Mproud 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are you kidding me? Someone already tried to get this deleted and it didn't happen. Lighten up! This game is a great way to find new articles, and a good stress reliever for Wikipedians who need something light and fun. I truly cannot believe we're going through this waste of time again. Underorbit 05:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT a social network. BigDT 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion attempts of these games have occurred at least three times now. I get really tired of people telling me what wikipedia is and is not for. I think these games are a great addition to the encyclopedia and remind me of how in many ways Wikipedia is better than a normal encyclopedia, in that they have these fun, interactive components to them. Vertigo700 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And one final thing to add, to add to Vertigo's comment, dont take things too seriously, you gotta have some fun along the way.PYLrulz 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, we can have some fun while editing this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not just only a normal encyclopedia, there are a lot of things too. Sometimes let's just be more flexible and let things like games happen here. Fun is needed here or else it will be another serious encyclopedia. Let's just leave this type of stuff alone. For the archives, delete them it is not useful at all. Terence Ong 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fun could easily be had off wiki. Just do a google search for games and have at it. I can't get the point across enough that games on Wikipedia clearly violate WP:NOT, and the idea of finding articles you never would have is easily accomplished with random article; that's kinda the point of having it there.. DoomsDay349 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been through about 2 AfDs and each one was a keep. Simply south 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it All per nom. — Arjun 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am often a stickler for rules, but when enforcing a rule would ruin so many editors' fun for so little de facto benefit I don't think it should be enforced. I would feel like I was being anal-retentive if I wanted to stick to the rules on something like this. DustinGC 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Games relieve Wikistress and give you something to do when bored (especially if you are a social outcast, have no siblings, etc.). Also, the archives should stay as they do not harm Wikipedia in any way. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! User:Sp3000 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh...your entire argument is that they should stay because they're fun. Let me say this one more bloody time: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PLAY GAMES. Honestly, why would you come to an encyclopedia to play a game? These games, while perhaps not dealing direct harm, are entirely useless to Wikipedia and thus should be deleted. And for the gazillionth time, I direct you to WP:NOT and WP:USER, which forbid social networking and games in userspace, respectively. "The games give you something to do when you're bored." If you're bored, get off of Wikipedia and do something else. When you're bored of a book, do you draw hangman in the page borders? No; you put it down and do something else. Same principle. DoomsDay349 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: You are comparing apples to oranges. This is not a paper encyclopedia. We do not get paid to write articles. Until someone starts giving us paychecks for editing Wikipedia, there is absolutely no reason not to have some fun with it. And you can point us to WP:NOT all you want, but TPTB haven't deleted the games yet despite numerous AfDs from people who can't stand the idea of Wikipedia being at all fun, so it would stand to reason that there really is a place for them here. Underorbit 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Fine. Destroy our credibility and play your checkers and hangman and whatnot. See what I care. DoomsDay349 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • No professional reviewer is going to judge an encyclopedia by their sandbox. I'm sorry, NO one does.--WaltCip 00:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that many of the games aren't doing much for the site, but the Word Association page does make a contribution as every word played in the game is linked and people actively make edits. —Mproud 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep games, Delete archives except most recent. Jake95 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep games, but delete archives per above --Banana04131 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete everything – Gurch 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep and BFN The last time this was MFD'ed, the subject was closed as a no consensus, but the majority to keep was obviously overwhelming. This area is under the sandbox so it's practically harmless. If anything, it contributes to the encyclopedia, as it encourages users to find articles with which to compare to other articles. Therefore, it becomes a learning tool for newbies. Let me summarize the arguments presented by the deletors thus far, and why this should be closed as a BFN:

  • Gurch - Delete everything, but no argument
  • Arjun01 - Delete everything per nom, but no argument
  • BigDT - Claims that Wikipedia is not a social network, but as a working project and inside the sandbox, this does not encourage social networking. Rather, it encourages research within Wikipedia, if only at its lowest form
  • Doomsday349 - NONE! No policy, nothing. Just "waste of space" which, by his logic, could be 50% of all of the articles on Wikipedia.

What say you?--WaltCip 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Umm...what? No policy? How many times have I cited WP:NOT to point out the games violation of social networking and games. It is a waste of space, but that is not my sole argument; it's hardly even one of my arguments. DoomsDay349 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Beg pardon, you did not cite policies IN your nom, and many people called for a delete PER your nom. Therefore, a loophole.--WaltCip 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a discussion, not a legal proceeding. Trying to nitpick at so-called loopholes isn't helping anything. Address the substantive issues of the page in question and nothing else. DoomsDay349 has done a good job of explaining why he thinks this page should be deleted through the sum total of all of his contributions to the discussion on this page, which is what this is about. It's a deletion discussion. It makes no sense to try to nitpick about whether he includes some of his reasoning in the nomination or in the discussion. In other words, you cannot get an MFD dismissed on procedural grounds, because there aren't any. --Cyde Weys 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for very good reasons laid out above. I would also like to point out that:
  1. Claiming that something is fun is a dumb reason to keep something on this encyclopedia.
  2. WP:IAR only applies if the encyclopedia is improved. The encyclopedia is not improved by some game in the sandbox, thus it does not apply.
  3. If you want to find interesting related articles, read something that interests you and click on the internal links. That's what they're there for.
  4. The sandbox is there for experimenting. Thus, these games should not exist in a space meant for experimenting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Dev920 - have you read any of the above posts regarding why Word Association should be kept? Better yet, have you ever been to Word Association, or are you acting under the pretense of a meatpuppet? It may also help you to read the previous nom for deletion. Though it was marked as no consensus, there were some very good reasons for keeping the article there. Scan them thoroughly.--WaltCip 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Please remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from accusing someone of meatpuppetry.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • *sigh* That was not an accusation. An accusation is a direct attempt to pin a misdoing on someone. It was merely a question. If I were to accuse him, I would say, "You're not real, you're just a meatpuppet."--WaltCip 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe you should peruse someone's userpage before believing you know them - I am female.
Anyway, yes, I read Word Association some weeks ago, and do you know what thought came to my tiny meatpuppety brain? "This is shit, why hasn't someone nominated this for deletion?" Well, lo and behold. If agreeing wholeheartedly with someone (someone who, by the way, has stood the full force of my "persuasion" at Esperanza, so I would hardly say we stand united on everything) makes me a meat puppet, then I'm a meat puppet. Except, of course, that a meat puppet is an "account created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues acting essentially as a puppet of the first user without having independent views and actual or potential contributions", and I am a user with over 4000 contributions who's been here 2 months longer than the person I'm allegedly a meatpuppet of. You might want to stop being a dick now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, Dev, your point has been made; your message was a bit uncivil. Try to keep this from turning into a personal attack fight war thingy. DoomsDay349 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See Walt? The meatpuppet has a mind of her own... No, OK, Doomsday, I'll stop. My point is made, no need to go on any further, but hopefully Walt will calm down and debate sensibly rather than throw hysterical accusations around now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter, I have nothing more to say to the likes of her. I merely asked your identity and something you may want to look at which also provided useful consensus to the MfD, and it became an unforeseen outburst. As I said before, it was not an accusation, merely a question. Tough to be a Wikilawyer sometimes...--WaltCip 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment: I have never played these games and probably never will. But it is MfDs like this one that discourage me from more active participation on Wikipedia. Some of these delete comments read like something out of the Borg collective. Sheesh, people, live and let live, and stop trying to make everyone who joins Wikipedia conform to what you believe is the proper way to be a good Wikipedian. It is actions like this that drive away good contributers. Jeffpw 10:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the sandbox is a place for experimentation. This has nothing do to with newbies experimenting. Play your games elsewhere, WP:NOT a free webhost. Moreschi Deletion! 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Moreschi, what is the Word Association on Wikipedia, according to you?--WaltCip 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no evidence that these games detract from Wikipedia. Indeed, the word association games have on many occasions resulted in articles being improved and even created as a direct result of the game, for example I created Ceremonial weapon as it was a perfect fit in one of the word association games. See also the [discussion that ended a little over a month ago]. Thryduulf 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please remember that this is not for Word Association, but all of the games. How does checkers help us? I could accept keeping Word Association but please focus on the other games. DoomsDay349 22:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Where is the evidence that they harm Wikipedia? Thryduulf 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Then it would pay to split the nom. I would prefer that, if one must be kept, that Word Association stay for its collaborative purposes. Thryduulf: It doesn't have to harm the Wikipedia to be a waste of space. See WP:ILIKEIT - while an essay, it does provide some valuable collaborative points. It should be noted, however, that "harmless" has been the argument used by the Esperanzans to protect their project space. Therefore, if this goes, wouldn't the Esperanzans, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network of sorts?--WaltCip 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Bad argument, Walt: Esperanza is up for deletion, and it's garnered something like 90% support for deletion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And about time, too. I recant that statement, then.--WaltCip 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion about Esperanza, but that is not what we are discussing here so is irrelevant. Word Association is useful to the project, as has been shown by many in this and the two prior deletion attempts. I don't play the other games, with the occasional exception of Dead End (which is also useful, in that it takes contributors to articles they would not otherwise have gone to - and I am sure that I am not alone in cleaning up, expanding, etc. articles I come to in this way), so I have no first-hand knowledge of them. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia AND a community (per Jimbo). Places that allow Wikipedians to relax and de-stress keep Wikipedians contributing and thus directly benefit the encyclopaedia. Space is not an issue, as has been established time and time again in prior deletion debates. The "I like it" argument you refer to is arguing for something to be kept with the reasoning "Keep because I like it", wheras what we have here is "Keep, for these good reasons". Most of what I'm seeing from the delete voters is "Delete it because I don't like it" and "delete it for these irrelevant reasons" - you can't have it both ways. Thryduulf 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant reasons? Like what; WP:NOT? I'm sorry, I thought that was a policy. The games should be deleted, and I believe I am reiterating myself for about the tenth time now, because they violate WP:NOT, the only one with marginal benefits (if any at all) is Word Association, and basically are a distraction from Wikipedia. I really don't understand what is so complicated. DoomsDay349 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You (and others) claim that the games are a distraction from Wikipedia, but you have not presented any evidence for this.
The "irrelevant reasons" are the "unencyclopaedic" claim - these pages are in project space and unless you want to delete things like WP:MfD, WP:NOT, policies, etc. for being unencyclopaedic, is irrelevant.
From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community", also there is nothing in the rest of that page that these games fall foul of - they are not for social networking (if you look at sites that are for social networking you will see they are completely different.
Also, I've just looked at the MfDs for Esperanza. Esperanza is not being deleted because it is harmless (indeed it was kept when this was the consensus), it is being deleted because it has become harmful (according to the excellently reasoned and evidenced nomination, and those that agree with it). This is very different to the games pages where the wishy-washy nomination claims one thing, without any evidence, that is actually contradicted by the evidence presented by those in favour of keeping it - which shows that at worst its harmless and at best its beneficial. Thryduulf 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What he means is, that in this particular section of the encyclopedia, deleting the games area is just as useless as deleting an essay. Nothing positive happens to Wikipedia when you get rid of it, no matter how you look at it. Diseases will not suddenly be cured (unless you can find proof, in which case I'll change my vote and encourage everyone to do likewise). If it was a social network, it would be quite obvious. (Keep in mind I'm defending Word Association, which should be speedy kept, not necessarily the other games.)--WaltCip 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The claims that games in Wikipedia distract from Wikipedia itself, from my personal experience, is false. If you check my edit count with Interiot's Wannabe Kate tool, you will see a drop in December's edit count. Why is this? Two words: Yahoo! Answers. For several days, it distracted me from Wikipedia more than Esperanza, the Coffee lounge, and the sandbox games ever did. As it was not on Wikipedia, I did not recover from my stupor until later, when my conscience kicked in. On Wikipedia, just after playing, I'd just go back to my watchlist to take down more articles. What others are implying, though they may not mean it, is to go to other sites and be even more distracted from Wikipedia. From my personal experience, I think that these should be kept. Perhaps the board games can go, but Word Association can certainly stay. bibliomaniac15 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The objection Doomsday has raised is that the games are a form of social neworking. All well and good if you are operating under a loose definition. However, that something is social networking by loose definition is not in itself a reason for deletion, because by that definition social networking encompasses all forms of recorded group interpersonal communication. Including talk pages, all userspace, and this debate. Word association is a type of educational game, so I see no problem with having one exist here, though I wouldn't spend my own time on it. Also Doomsday, I'd like to comment that people actually do read encyclopedias for fun. I used to read my grandfather's 1940s Brittanica when I was a child for fun, and am involved in Wikipedia because I find learning and writing to be fun. If we didn't derive pleasure from it we wouldn't volunteer our time here, so claiming that we must "have something wrong with us" for finding encyclopedias fun is baseless and somewhat incivil. --tjstrf talk 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOT. Games do NOT belong in an encyclopedia. If you want to play games, click here. That's a place where you're meant to play games.  Jorcoga  06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion is being judged on consensus, not what several other people have incorrectly cited.--WaltCip 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. We don't have places for "fun" and to "relieve stress", and these kind of things just abuse the editing privileges on Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. I agree with Jorcoga, if you want to play games, there are hundreds of gaming websites elsewhere on the internet. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am the guilty one for including the bit on relieving "wikistress" on the Word Association page (I made that edit). In actuality, this is far from what is being done there. It is instead getting more people to make edits on the site. When WA started, there were actually many red links to words being submitted. I know for a fact many of these links had pages created simply because they were started in the Word Association game. It is nothing like the other games on this site and I hope you'll consider it in a different light. —Mproud 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, I think that these games should be deleted. Although they may have some small part in teaching people wiki syntax, they are also giving the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is first, foremost, and exclusively, an encyclopedia, and I do not see any room for games. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia AND a community of editors. These games pages help keep that community of editors working on Wikipedia. They do play some small part in teaching syntax, but they are also a way for experienced editors to find new articles they didn't know about. Thryduulf 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This is an encyclopaedia. You can find games at thousands of other sites on the Web. --Folantin 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia AND a community. If you actually read the page, you will find nothing there that these games fall foul of. They would not be appropriate to the main namespace, which is why they are not there. Thryduulf 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no purpose for games. That's one of the reasons Esperanza was nominated originally. It fails WP:NOT. This is a Encyclopedia- if you want to play games, request a Wikia where you can play word association.--andrew|ellipsed...Speak 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you actually read WP:NOT you will see that these pages don't actually fail it - Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia, and these games benefit the encyclopaedia by benefiting the community. By removing the games from Wikipedia you get no benefits, indeed it is not unlikely that you will harm the encyclopaedia by shunting editors of to Wikia (where they will not be improving Wikipedia) and increasing burnout of editors. Keeping the games is a win/win situation (the editors win and the encyclopaedia wins), removing them is lose/neutral (at best) or lose/lose (the editors lose, and the encyclopaedia losses the editors). Thryduulf 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said to leave Wikipedia. I said "if you 'want' to play games, request a Wikia where you can play word association". I never said leave. That's a bit harsh though, telling people to leave just because they want to play games. They can stay here, and I wouldn't care. I hope they stay and edit. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.--andrew|ellipsed...Speak 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to tell people to leave Wikipedia because they want to play games; but in saying "Request a Wikia..." you are telling people to leave Wikipedia to play games. My first point is that while people are playing games on Wikipedia they are here to correct/improve/expand when they see something that needs doing. If they are on a Wikia they are not able to either find or fix Wikipedia.
My second point is that those who want to play games may choose not to come back if we send them away. I fail to see how either of these benefits the encyclopaedia? I can see how either or both could harm the encyclopaedia though. Take the example of somebody who spends 80% of their time playing games and 20% improving Wikipedia, send them elsewhere and you stand to loose 100% of their time. Thryduulf 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
People aren't going to leave Wikipedia because they dared to use another website to play games, just like they aren't going to leave Wikipedia because they have to go to another website to get the news or check their email. And if they would leave and never come back then they weren't really interested in the first place and they should go. --The Way 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll change my stance since I couldn't care less. Delete all.--WaltCip 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and delete archives. Robin Chen 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lighten up! We know it's an encyclopedia, but stretching the policy line isn't going to make it explode. -- Chris is me 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Not hurting the project. If anything, they help the project. --- RockMFR 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless – Gurch 11:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)You don't get to vote twice, Gurch. Natgoo 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the detailed arguments and evidence above detailing how they help the project (if you haven't already) and then please explain why you feel they are useless. Thryduulf 11:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for all of the reasons numerated in this and previous MFD discussions. Natgoo 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the sandbox not the main encyclopedia.JeffStickney 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This debate is getting out of hand, I hope that the closing adminstrator will ignore the keep votes and delete it this time around. Remember why Wikipedia was created in the first place, to freely share information across the world. I don't see how "games" help us accomplish that mission or help the community itself. As being said above, there are a lot more l33t gaming websites out there on the internet and I don't see any need in using Wikipedia as one. WP:IAR applies only in cases where it will useful for Wikipedia, and this isn't one of them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Gee, Michaelas10, you're really suggesting that an administrator ignore Wikipedia policy regarding consensus in order to uphold Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NOT? Not being a true Wikipedian, this sort of logic baffles me. Really, you rabid deletionists need to get a grip, and come to see that this sort of mean-spiritedness is more destructive to Wikipedia than any game could possibly be. I don't even play these silly games and I am appalled by the spiteful tone of these delete votes. Jeffpw 10:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I sincerely hope the admins are going to ignore ad hominem arguments and violations of WP:AGF like the above comment from Jeffpw. I'm sick of seeing this kind of thing on XfDs. --Folantin 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I too hope this rant isn't an encouragement to the closing administrator to ignore WP:CONSENSUS, and the !votes of those with opinions other than your own. If you wish to see these games deleted, then I suggest a better way of going about it is to provide some evidence that the claims made by those who would like it deleted are true, and evidence that the claims made by those with other opinions are not true. I know I am biased, but it appears that those in favour of keeping the games are saying "These should be kept because they benefit Wikipedia. Here are examples of how they have helped in the past.", and "Wikipedia will suffer if these games are deleted, here's why". In contrast those arguing for deletion are making statements along the lines of "These games harm Wikipedia because I don't like them", and "Kill with fire!" with no explanation why this should be so. I am not alone in having asked for explanations and evidence to back up these arguments, but these have not been forthcoming". Thryduulf 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I consider just the opposite actually, those in favor of keeping this article provide either "this makes editing fun" or "it won't hurt anybody" as a reason, while those in favor of deleting this article provide that there other places to play games on rather than Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and using it for other non-related purposes is literally taking adventage of it. This falls under the criteria of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET as playing games with other users is social networking. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you not spotted then that some of those in favour of keeping (including myself in several places) have been saying things like:
  • This is not just social networking (go to a social networking site, and then go to the games pages and see the difference, its not hard to miss)
  • The games actually help the encyclopaedia, for example by:
  • Ensuring editing remains fun keeps people here
  • They keep morale high and wikistress low (whether you feel it or not, others do)
  • Aiding interaction, for example I was involved in a significant dispute with another user and part of what kept me (and probably them) actually progressing this dispute constructively was that we were both able to play the word association game and interact in a friendly manner there)
  • The games allow people to find and improve articles they otherwise would not have done - a significant number of articles I've contributed to have been through the games. See also Phileas' comment immediately below this one.
  • The games result in the creation of articles (e.g. Ceremonial weapon, see [[ Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association/Archive_1#How Anglo-Saxon came from Mugdrum Island and Preppie for a small discussion on this)
  • The games result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted - starting new games gives people a reason to browse the random articles. Often when I do this I find articles that should be deleted and so I've deleted/nominated/proposed/tagged them as such.
  • The games result in the reversion of vandalism - if people aren't playing the games on wiki, they don't browse these often low-profile articles so the vandalism doesn't get spotted and reverted.
  • When people are playing the games, they are editing Wikipedia. If someone leaves them a message during this time they see it and respond to it there and then. If they are off wiki this doesn't get a response until potentially much later - by which time the person who left the message has gone. This is not a very significant benefit, but it is a benefit nonetheless.
Deleting the games removes all these benefits, resulting in harm to Wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without the word association game I wouldn't have edited half the pages to which I've contributed. If you don't like the games, don't go there. Simple. Phileas 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for games, pure and simple. It's policy and detracts from what Wikipedia is here for, to be an encyclopedia. If you are suffering from 'wikistress' (which is, in my opinion and with no offense intended, a rather ridiculous concept) then google games. If you're on Wikipedia then you are already online and the internet is massive, there are plenty of gaming websites out there: go to one of them if you want to play games, you don't need to spend all of your time on Wikipedia. If you want to work on an encyclopedia come to Wikipedia, if you want to relieve stress and play games google a games website. --The Way 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: "You don't need to spend all of your time on Wikipedia". True, but when people do spend time playing games on Wikipedia they improve it (see the the many reasons detailed above), when you spend time playing games on other websites you are not improving Wikipedia - which would you prefer people to be doing? Having fun and editing Wikipedia are not mutually exclusive, not should they be. Thryduulf 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you make connection between gaming on Wikipedia with contructive contributions, you might as well make connection between vandalism with contructive contributions, it's that simple. Starting new games gives people a reason to browse the random articles. Often when I do this I find articles that should be deleted and so I've deleted/nominated/proposed/tagged them as such. - Doesn't make any sense. I think games do exactly the opposite than encouraging editors to edit Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The Word Association directly benefits the Wikipedia project. Every word submitted offers a link to that page and many participants make edits directly from the page. This in a sense is not much different from collaboration efforts and featured articles available elsewhere on this site. As the creator of the Word Association on Wikipedia, I can tell you the intention was just to get more people involved. I think that is being accomplished here, and we should be (and are) capitalizing on this participation. —Mproud 17:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Random comment: Happy new year, forgive and forget. Simply south 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia needs a place like this. It allows people to have fun in between the editing and creating articles. Baseracer 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep who'd know the festive season would bring out the worst in people?  Grue  13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, 2007 has barely started and here we have yet another violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The ad hominem attacks in these XfDs have got to stop. I hope admins will discount any entries in these discussions based on nothing more than impugning the motives of those who happen to hold a different opinion. --Folantin 13:50, 1 January 2007 (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.