Talk:The Game (mind game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Game (mind game) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Move proposal

Given that there are other games with the name "The Game", such as The Game (treasure hunt) and The Game (dice game), I think it would make more sense to move this article to The Game (mind game). (which is currently under protection) WarpstarRider 03:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info for article

Most of the times I see the rules for The Game written out, they include a rule that states "After losing the game, you have a period of one hour (sometimes stated as 1/2 hour) in which you can think of the game without losing." Might as well add this to the article. Zachcoggin (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zachcoggin, and thanks for suggesting an improvement to the article. Note that Wikipedia policy requires that all information in articles be verifiable and reliably sourced (just having heard about a particular fact, or knowing it to be true for a certain group of people is not usually sufficient). Can you find a reliable source as defined here that documents this rule? Examples would be a published article in a reputable newspaper or magazine, such as those already being cited by the article. Note that blogs and personal websites are not usually considered reliable sources, since anyone could post any rule there but readers have no way of knowing how correct the information is. Thanks. Wiw8 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How about: "After losing the game, you have a period of one hour (sometimes stated as 1/2 hour)time in which you can think of the game without losing." The first reference already has a quote from a high-schooler stating a 3-second rule. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Where's the reference for the part you want to add? I wouldn't refer to a "3-second rule", either, as it's unlikely that such a rule would be known outside that high school. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I was merely suggesting that by being nonspecific as to how long this "immunization period" lasts, it would probably be easier to find multiple sources for it. The three-second mention is just one example that's in a source we're already using, I certainly don't think we should specify three seconds in the article, but if anyone really wants to do the research (I don't really want to myself), I was just suggesting that it would be more likely for a general mention to be acceptable in the article than the "one hour/half hour" that Zachcoggin suggested. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point in that the first referenced article does mention an immunity period; specifically it says that some players allow 3 seconds while others allow up to half an hour to forget the game. This isn't listed or specifically emphasized as a "fourth rule" in any of the sources though, so if it is felt that this is worth mentioning (with reference to the first listed source), I would suggest at most a sentence after the rules along the lines of: "Some players allow a period of time following loss during which the game may be thought about without incurring further loss.[1]" Wiw8 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The way I learned The Game, part of the difficulty is the awareness of trying to forget The Game. Until I read this section, I had never heard of allotted time given to forget. The person who taught me said that once a person is reminded, they start losing again until they forget the Game, at which time they stop losing. Under this rule, they do not have to continually announce that they are losing the Game (which is what I would surmise this additional "immunization" rule is attempting to avoid) until the next time they are reminded after they have forgotten again. --BlueNight (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As I learned The Game, the immunization period is to keep The Game from becoming the sort of infuriating childish meme that causes such dislike, as the article states. The immunization period is what keeps The Game a thought-provoking mind experiment instead of the latest way of being annoyed by something that found it's way onto the Internet. I'd like to hope that this article (which didn't exist when I began playing) becomes the location of the standardized set of rules for The Game, and as such, the immunization period should, at the very least, be listed as a sub-rule used by some players of The Game. This will at least introduce the concept to the uninitiated, and I believe will cause more players to understand the importance of some period of time where The Game is suspended. -- RobSpewack —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection?

As this article seems to attract a large number of nonsensical edits from new and IP users I think it would greatly benefit from semiprotection, at least until the buzz dies down. CharonX/talk 13:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt for a while. Leave a RPP request. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the need for semi-protection, given the nature of The Game itself, but is there a channel through which legitimate changes (such as the listing of the "immunization" rule as a sub-rule) can be made? RobSpewack (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The talk page? J. W. 10:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion proposal

In spite of the DRV which allowed the recreation, I still don't see it as having WP:RS, nor do I see a significant difference from the deleted copies. (Furthermore, a blacklisted spamlink got into the #External links section somehow, which I blanked in order to edit the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to losethegame.com, and as far as I can tell it's not blacklisted; I checked MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist just now, and it's not there, and I didn't get any warning when I made the edit, which, IIRC, you're supposed to get if you try to add a link that's blacklisted. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/losethegame.com, the "link is not on the blacklist". Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't leave it in. I guess I must have a different blacklist. Also, I see we do have two reasonable sources (a college student newspaper is not a reliable source, in most cases), so I guess the article is OK.

I just lost the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.84.81 (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about this myself, but for different reasons - because the article has so little content, and effectively always will (since I can't see how it can ever be expanded beyond the stub it is now). There is, quite simply, so little to say about The Game that I'm not sure it needs an article at all. I'm willing to respect the consensus at DRV for now, but if anyone else feels strongly that this article does not belong on Wikipedia, they can always take back it to WP:AFD and find out people's opinions there. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that there isn't anymore to say about The Game. We could very easily write a longer article about it. The reason why I'm not bold enough to actually add all that stuff is that the additional information is based on other sources besides the ones that meet the verifiability criterion, and that would give the deletionists again new grounds for an unwarranted deletion. So I'm cautious. — Adhemar (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing at least 3 reliable sources, just like at the DRV, and a lot more than what I recall the deleted versions looking like. Not sure what you're seeing, Arthur, but it doesn't look speedy-able. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] losethegame.com: blacklisted or not?

I was able to add the link, no problem[2]; I wasn't even aware that the URL had a history of misuse. But Arthur Rubin says he was unable to save his edits while the link was on the page. Also between my edit and his was another edit that was also obviously successful with the URL on the page. So the questions are:

  1. Is this URL blacklisted? (see my comment in the previous section — it seems to not be)
    1. If so, why was I able to add it to the page, and why was WarpstarRider able to save the page with it there?
    2. If not, why did Arthur Rubin have to remove it from the page before he could save his edit?
  2. Should this URL be blacklisted? (this I simply don't know the answer to, couldn't find any info in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist)
  3. Should this URL be on the page in External Links? (it seems appropriate to me, as the closest thing to an "official site" likely to exist)

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It should not be on the page, though it's not blacklisted. If numerous attempts are made to add it to the page, it will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dansiman in that this seems an appropriate external link for this article, if for no other reason than two of the three main sources mention this one website, with the Canadian Press article explicitly referring to it as "the biggest site on the topic". For this reason it is likely that we will get numerous attempts to add the link made in good faith by editors simply trying to improve the article. Blacklisting in this case would seem rather overkill, considering blacklisting is supposed to be a last resort against spammers. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you feel this link is so inappropriate? Wiw8 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The owner of the site was a problem-spammer/vandal several years back. Whether or not it's the biggest is irrelevant. It's by no means official, and doesn't add anything to a topic that there is little further to elaborate on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum; actually, it was blacklisted long ago on the wiki-wide list. I don't think the blacklist filters apply to user-space. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, how long has it been off the blacklist then? If for very long, and there hasn't been a problem since, I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that there's no need to readd it to the blacklist. This article is not in user-space, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I had never heard of the site prior to reading about it in those same articles Wiw8 mentioned, in fact the mention of "biggest site on the topic" in that Canadian Press article was the very reason I added it. Adding a link to losethegame.com to this page should absolutely not be grounds for re-blacklisting the link, because if there's any place in all of Wikipedia that the link belongs, this is it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - as what seems to be the most popular website relating to 'The Game', it would be appropriate here as an External Link, even if it remains blacklisted on other pages. Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't more clear. It is still on the meta blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Terraxos. I personally believe that Lose The Game .com should be mentioned in an "External References" section. (Save The Game .org less so.) I don't believe that this website is even close to "official" (a meme like this has no officialness to it) — but it is the resource on the Internet the most dedicated to the subject.
The fact that the owner was or is a spammer, or promotes vandalizing Wikipedia with The Game spam messages, is not very relevant. Wikipedia does not automatically endorse the content of websites it links to. On any other page, I agree that such links should be removed (which is why I understand the blacklisting), but here such a link is appropriate.
— Adhemar (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) So, put it back in? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were to be restored, and should be on the meta black list (about which I quite agree), the only solution is to have a meta admin remove it from the blacklist, place it here, and then place it back on the blacklist. I'm not really happy about that, as it prevents editing the article, and allows a window during which the site can be spammed throughout MediaWiki projects, but that would be the only solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't even have an account on meta, yet I'm able to add it just fine. Watch. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so now I do get the error message. Perhaps it was a bug that I was able to put it in before. Anyhoo, the error message did propose an alternate solution: the link can be whitelisted locally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansiman (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. Still, considering (one of the goals) of the site (and of the game) is to spam itself, and I don't think we have "whitelist on one article", that still leaves the problem in place, except it has to only be a en: admin. I really don't know the proper place for blacklist discussions, but I think that this discussion should be moved there where more admins will see it. Perhaps WP:ANI? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just wanted to point out

someone really needs to sort out the grammatical issues in this article. it really does look dumb if you can't use capital letters for the start of sentances and propper nouns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.164.246 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget proper spelling! OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As a Little Joke...

What do the editors think about possibly adding "You just lost the game." as the first line to the article? Is Wikipedia too srsly srs or is it reasonable? Personally I would find it reasonable and funny to add it. ;) ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is too srsly srs. The one line could practically be an article itself. ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jokes aren't really well placed in what is supposed to be a resource. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There's always Uncyclopedia if Wikipedia is too serious for you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I told you before, if I forget to, LOG OUT my freakin' account before making your own edits. ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hes talking to me, sometime I use his computer and he never logs out. If he was that srs about it... then why doesn't he log out himself. ;DDD Anyway, seems no one likes the idea x.x Though I personaly think it could be added somewere, in a quote box or something, sence it is 'the game'. 24.61.102.23 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add it in the upper right corner, in an info box, or in some hidden location on the page (per rules, of course)


Well, there goes any chance of the site being un-blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words if I ever saw them

The Game has been called pointless and has been known to infuriate some people. The origins of the Game are unknown.

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.208.35 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig?

Searching for "lost the game" brings people to Lost: Via Domus. There should probably be a disambig page to let people select either this page or the Lost video game. --PatrickD (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

Isn't the first rule usually worded as "You are always playing the game"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.2.166 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Debunked

I don't really know if this is too unserious for Wikipedia, but there's a rule called "rule 34", which basically means there's pornography of everything, and if there is something there ISN'T pornography of, it does not exist. And since there's no pornography on the game, yet, it cannot exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambowjo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

rule 35 137.222.215.52 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Rule 35 states that if there isn't pornography of the subject in existence, make it.—Preceding unsigned comment added byCompuHacker (talk • contribs)
I know what rule 35 is, what I meant is( [3] see definition 2), i.e. if it doesn't exist it will be made. Rambowjo: you're just not looking hard enough there's bound to be pics of somebody w/ you just lost the game written all over them, if not then rule 35 applies 137.222.215.52 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It exists, I've seen it. It consists of a JPG in thumbnail - when you view the full size version, you immediately notice that the girl has "YOU LOST THE GAME" written up one of her arms. It can't be seen in the thumbnail. Rissa (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Hiya, unreg'd and don't care because wikipedia is st00pid.

This image is very popular and if anyone has the original, without the black demotivator poster it'd be great. http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/the_game.jpg Put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.228.73 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOT Vandalism

That image I uploaded wasn't vandalism, it was just showing a flier I found at my school, and thought it'd be cool to show on the page. This shouldn't count against my credibility. --ZacLOL (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to see it, but the idea behind the image doesn't sound too much like vandalism to me. I'm not sure what else could be used as an image for the article. --Maxamegalon2000 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not all articles require an image. In this case, the image was a piece of notebook paper with the "you lose" message scribbled on it, which is nothing more than a stealth way to introduce the "you lose" crap on the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything stealthy about it at all. "The 'you lose' crap," assuming I understand your use of the phrase, is a major component of the subject of the article. Even if your concerns about the quality of the image and manipulation of the article are true, I'm still not sure adding it is something that should have been immediately reverted without discussion, let alone vandalism. --Maxamegalon2000 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I added it for reasons like an example of what people normally do to make others lose, it even mentions something similar to a flier in the article. Plus, I didn't added it 'as a sneaky way to make people lose,' because honestly, when someone gets to the page of The Game, they've already lost, being on the page ABOUT the game. So, it's just a way of showing what it looks like. --ZacLOL (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I too can't see anything wrong with the image described really - this type of note is mentioned both in the article and in the sources, is it not? Whether or not the image is necessary probably merits a discussion here, but I can't see how this was vandalism under anyone's definition. I don't usually question stuff like this, but in this case I can't help but feel that assuming a little good faith and bringing up the discussion here would have been better. Wiw8 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's easier to assume good faith when the contributor in question doesn't have a history of vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I notice the vandalism warning on his userpage, looking through ZacLOL's contribs I genuinely struggled to find the history of vandalism amidst the good faith contributions (including removal of other people's vandalism). I think I've pinned it down though, to the addition (in jest) of the word "fictional" to an article about a (heavily delayed) upcoming music album, which he later apologised for. While I wouldn't condone such an edit myself (light hearted vandalism is still vandalism), it seems rather over the top to deny this user any measure of assumption of good faith for the rest of time just because of this. I know that because of its popularity this game (mind game) article is often subject to nonsense vandalism, but the problem with marking good faith edits as vandalism too hastily (and not taking it back when it is shown not to be) is that it heavily discourages users from making further good faith attempts to improve the article. I'd be surprised if many users would dare to add a similar image now, even if it is in good faith. Wiw8 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So, what, is it cool to put the picture back up? I guess MAYBE it didn't really HAVE to be there, but it was just an example, all in good faith.--ZacLOL (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not see the picture, but if all it is are the words 'you lost the game' on a sheet of notebook paper that you found, it does not see all that valuable of an addition to the article because any caption would not be allowed as unverifiable original research. But thanks for your attempt to improve the look of the article - appropriate images are generally a good thing for articles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For the win

Can the game be won? Ordinary Person (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can. See here. I just lost teh game (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the particular version that myself and the people I know play, the only way to win The Game is to not remember The Game in the 29 minutes before you die. Obviously, this only applies if you follow the immunization rule discussed above. As far as I know, this is the only mutually agreed upon way of "winning" The Game. RobSpewack (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What if they have the game in the afterlife? Then you can never win... --Rosencrantz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we all lose the game by visiting this page? Dachshund2k3 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability in relation to The Game

Obviously, verifiability is very important to a Wiki which aims to remain at least somewhat scholarly. However, in terms of The Game, very little professional literature has been written on the subject. As The Game is largely a social experiment with no clear origin or even a standardized set of rules, shouldn't we be encouraging as much information as possible (aside from the obvious vandalism attempts) to be posted. The way I see it, this article should serve as a point of reference for those who wish to learn more about The Game and it's origins, and the way to expand that information is to allow those who believe they have useful insight to post it, and the moderators can sift through it later. I just hate to see how small this article is in comparison to how many people actually play The Game when there may be much more information out there that, although unverifiable, is still valid. RobSpewack (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't make exceptions to Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources and verifiability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While the Wikipedia page on reliable sources is a guideline rather than a policy and allows some measure of common-sense to be applied when interpreting it for any given article, No Original Research is a fundamental policy and unfortunately the type of information you are suggesting is, by definition, original research. The problem is that with a phenomenon this widespread there are likely to be literally hundreds of variations that have been developed, some of which may only be "played" by a handful of players, and if we allowed all these variations to be added then the article would likely degenerate into an unencyclopedic mess. The way I see it, the job of an encyclopedia is to present the verifiable facts about a topic, and if readers are interested in reading further into the finer but potentially less well-established details, (such as, in this case, research into The Game's origins, rule variations, etc) then they can follow external links or check out the sources for pointers. In this particular case there aren't any allowable external links but the sources mention websites more attuned to the sort of information you talk about. Wiw8 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser known rule

A lesser known rule of the game is that you cannot lose the game by being told that you have lost the game, or by another person announcing their loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.215.56 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)