Talk:The Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Game article.
Article policies
WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Discussion about The Game (game)

[edit] The Game (game)

If you are here about the mind game called "The Game", often characterized by the phrase, "You lose the game", please take the time to read and understand the following:

  • About policies in general
    • Information on WP is required to meet certain standards.
    • Information which fails to meet even a single criterion is subject to deletion.
  • Specific policies and guidelines
    • Notability - Something must be notable for it to be included
      • "Notability" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia
      • Popularity does not automatically qualify as notability
      • The mere mention of something in a reliable source does not automatically establish notability
    • No original research - Wikipedia accepts pre-established facts only
    • Reliable sources are generally required
      • An open web discussion forum is not a reliable source
      • A Facebook group is not a reliable source
      • A blog is not a reliable source
      • A long list of non-reliable sources does not add up to a reliable source
      • A secondary source which appears to simply regurgitate a single non-reliable source is often considered questionable
    • Verifiability
      • Others must be able to independently verify all of the above
      • Specific citations of a reliable source will help verification
      • Unfortunately, we cannot just take anyone's word for it
  • Also
  • What you can do
    • Read and understand the various policies and guidelines linked above
    • Find multiple, reliable, tertiary sources which meet all criteria
    • Cite those sources extensively in your comments here
    • Avoid letting your emotions or personal preferences cloud your arguments

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of all the things listed above, the only issue previous articles of the Game had was with the definition of "Reliable Source" to which both sides of the discussion cherry picked what that means. Pro Gamers listed forum posts and blogs which are deemed unexceptable, which is flowing the wiki definition of an unreliable source to the word, but the website www.losethegame.com and the article in newspaper De Morgen are not an unreliable source according to wiki's definition. And, in a catch 22 situation for those who believe the Game is a hoax, then it sucessfully hoaxed De Morgen and equally deserves an article. Either way you argue it, the Game deserves an article: the only decision is whether the article is about "The Game" or "The Game Hoax".
Much like the above list says, a long list of unreliable sources and some reliable ones does not make them all unreliable. The Game exists, the reliable sources exist. If anyone denies that the Game fits wiki's requirements I want you to quote the wiki rule it fails and specifically how it fails it. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you stop acting like you are pushing an agenda, or are somehow entitled to an article, you will get a much better response. What matters at Wikipedia is consensus and neutrality. Please try to understand that, and you will get much better results.
Second, your claims do fail the guidelines posted, in rather obvious ways. Please study the policies, guidelines, and articles linked, and take the time to understand what this is about, rather than responding emotionally.
Specifically:
  • "newspaper De Morgen": Nobody has provided anything like a citation for that. No publication info. No issue, date, or page. Not so much as a blip. So it cannot be verified.
Again, I spelled this out for you. Please provide proper citations of multiple reliable sources which are also tertiary sources and not original research. You keep insisting that "The Game" is notable, so this should be easy for you to do.
—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, I don't keep insisting anything. I've only posted once in this article before (as "the British Game player" in the archive). Anyway, I have your multiple citeable reliable tertiary sources. 3/19/07 Dail Nebraskan article and a photo of the De Morgen article. Therefore, either then Game is real and deserves an entry, or it is a successful hoax and still deserves an entry. Now exactly where does it fail the wiki rules? --84.69.10.98 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
First, sorry I confused you with some of the other anonymous posters in this discussion. You may want to consider typing in your name with the signature, or even creating a named account, to avoid such confusion in the future. • Thank you for posting those sources. That's a big step in the right direction. • Can you provide or find a translation of the foreign-language article? This is the English-language Wikipedia, so non-English sources are problematic. • In general, newspaper articles are not tertiary sources. They are typically secondary sources, or primary sources for opinion pages, editorials, and the like. • Finally, and again, the mere fact that something exists does not satisfy notability guidelines. • I do ask that that you please take the time to read and understand the pages I link to. It will save us both a lot of time. • So, while you have taken a step in the right direction, I believe you still have a ways to ago. My opinion alone doesn't count for much, of course -- Wikipedia works by consensus. But given past discussions, I really think that's the response you'll get from other editors as well. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I did consider making a named account but so far this is the only article I have any desire to edit/discuss and that is only because me and my friends at the University of Kent were needless to say a bit miffed that one of our most regular activities was accussed of being the work of fantasy by American schoolkids faking wiki articles. Losethegame.com hasn't helped the topic much by doing more harm than good and annoying people so much that the people in charge wouldn't believe the game existed if Bush shouted "I just lost the game!" live on tv. This means that The Game is given absolutely no leanway given its secretive and impulsive nature. As I said in my part in the archive, The Game should be given the same treatment as games such as tag (and the 50-something variations listed on wikipedia) . Now you wouldn't dream of saying that the tag article (or any other playground game with an article) should be removed because there isn't some official text cited for everything because you apreciate that its not the kind of thing . Another example is the happy slapping article: that is almost nothing but newspaper articles and blogs yet that is offically not good enough to acknowledge the existance of happy slapping on wikipedia.
Anyway, as requested, here is the translation to that newspaper:
The Game must be the simplest game in the world. It all comes down to: "the moment you think about it, you lose". Psychology for beginners: try very hard not to think about something and you will think about it.
A player who loses The Game by thinking about it is obliged to state out loud that he has lost. One version says that all other players in the vicinity lose as well, other versions give other players a short amount of time - ten minutes or half an hour, the rules are vague - to forget about The Game again. Whichever version is played, for the losers not all is lost: the moment that The Game is out of their head again, they are playing it once more.
In the US and UK The Game is, mainly in schools and university, a modest hype. In Brazil, Australia and Japan, more and more youngsters follow. Nearer to us, The Game is starting to appear as well - slowly at the moment, but unstoppable all the same. The first rule determines that whoever knows of The Game, is playing it - so there's no escaping it.
In the UK, fanatics have developed several strategies to make their fellow players lose. They write "The Game" in big letters on the chalkboard in front of the class, they hide little notes saying that the founder of the note has lost. The ultimate strategy is, of course, to remind the competition of The Game as often as possible, without being reminded of it yourself.
But every victory is short, for it is always temporary. Ultimate victory does not exist, The Game never ends. Even for expert players, it is not known what the origins of The Game are. On the internet, several websites are dedicated to finding those origins.
Those of you who were not paying close attention might have missed it, but there can be no misunderstanding about it: all those who have read this article, play The Game now, whether you like it or not. Sorry.
The Game is a social activity connected to student culture (and within the last couple of years online to internet forums) so its not the type of thing that gets research papers about it. That said, several years ago would people have claimed that internet jargon like 133t, smilies and "lol" didn't exist because any evidence of their existance could only be found on "unreliable sources"? And as I said before, for those who want to believe the game is a hoax then surely my previous sources must be reliable (what better source for the hoax than the hoax itself?) because such sources are acceptable in the April Fools' Day article.
Honestly I think the best thing to do would be to make an article that is balanced between "The Game" and "The Game hoax" to try and keep everyone happy. As I have showed, there is more to this than losethegame.com's pointless vandalism (and the equal vandalism of those that demand that the Game never gets recognition no matter what evidence is presented) and if we all started working on coming up with something balanced this issue will finally be resolved and everybody is happy. I'll just be happy if I can progress the discussion so both sides of the debate stop being brick walls to each other :) --84.69.10.98 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the translation, that's a very useful contribution, and something I expect will come in valuable. Is that your own work? If not, please note where you copied it from, so we can cite it if need-be. • As I have written, repeatedly, the fact that other articles on Wikipedia (tag, happy slapping, whatever) have problems is generally not considered an acceptable argument to get something else included. This is often called the "other stuff exists" argument. • I really do wish you would heed my advice, and take the time to read and understand the policies and guidelines I've linked to. You keep raising points they explicitly address. I grow tired of repeating myself. • Please understand that nobody is denying the existence of "The Game". The lack of a Wikipedia article does not mean something does not exist. I don't have a Wikipedia article on me, but I exist. The reason "The Game" has not gotten a Wikipedia article is that nobody can find sources which meet Wikipedia requirements. That's nothing to do with "The Game" itself; it just means it has received little treatment in the literature. Presumably that will change with time. If that's the case, you'll have to be patient. • In particular, I don't think "The Game" is a hoax at all. (I suppose it might have started as one, but if so, I suspect that would be impossible to source accurately. Either way, it's become real.) I know people who are playing it "for real" now. But my personal experience is not acceptable for an article here. If it was, I'd have written the article myself already. • You are perfectly correct in that things like "l33t speak" would not have qualified for an article when they were first created. It often takes years for reliable sources to appear on such neologisms. "The Game" may have to wait that long, too. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't intend to make you repeat yourself; I have read through the policies and guidelines you gave me. I didn't think it was all as clear as it could be, spent more time on what isn't allowed than what is and had overlapping policies (ie. an article must have reliable sources and be notable, which itself requires reliable sources). It is perfectly fine beuacracy for typical articles such as famous places, historic events, etc (but not famous people, I'll come on to that in a sec). However, the guidlines are designed to prevent personal and vanity pages (as well as hoaxes on wiki) and there is a grey area inbetween where certain forms of cultural knowledge falls to the beuacracy. I also did note that the rules technically would mean a famous person's own blog would be an unacceptable source and so if the celeb made some great statement or confession about themselves online it would be rejected for the wiki article.
Oh yes, I cannot link specifically to the translation as it is currently hosted at losethegame.com and any links to there are blocked on wiki (presumably due to the vandals). Its under the awards section on their site if you would like to have a look. There are a few other sources for the game they have collected on there but I didn't consider them citable, valid or big enough to worth a mention. I'm sure there are other places where the text is hosted but I haven't looked.
I'm glad you don't think it is fake. Looking through the history of this discussion it seemed that most people made the assumption that "there is no sources therefore it must not exist and you are all lying". I'm happy to know that the door is still open and if it is just a question of time I can live with that. A google search of "I just lost the game" brings up so many valid mentions of the game (I did actually check numerous results to see if they meant "The Game", not just looked at the total number of hits to the search :P ) so give it a while and should be big enough to get the attention it deserves. However, I still think the rules and guidlines are incomplete with regards to cultural phenomina and the bad publisity the Game has had in the past on wiki ( I do wonder if the Game had never been mentioned before and someone created a sensible article with those 2 source would there have been the fuss there is now) is making things unnecesarily difficult. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia policies and guidelines do address the question of current culture. For example, Avoid neologisms mentions that such will be very hard to work with, and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia. The guidelines on Notability also touch on this theme. • You're welcome to propose changes to any of this, over at the village pump. However, two of the most fundamental policies here are Verifiability and No original research. I don't know that it would be possible to be more allowing for current culture, and still satisfy those policies. • Ultimately, as far as "The Game" goes, I do think it is just a question of time, as you say. Even if it proves to be a fad, it's got enough of a following right now that it will have been a notable fad. But the sources don't exist yet. • Thanks again for listening. Wikipedia has a strong community, and there are lots of ways you can help, if you're interested. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note my dissatisfaction that this article does not exist because I actually would like encyclopedic information about it. I am annoyed that petty squabbles between bureaucrats and obsessives are getting in the way of an actual encyclopedic entry being produced. Especially when it's obvious to all but the willfully ignorant what needs to be written. So I have a question; wouldn't it be better for this article to exist with notes regarding its not citing sources than to simply have no article? As it is, it's clear to anyone concerned with this page that the phenomenon is real, it seems like only bureaucratic stubbornness is keeping this article down. Why? Quantumelfmage (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Your dissatisfaction is noted. • We would all like encyclopedic information on "The Game". The problem is that there does not appear to be any available. • Avoid making personal attacks. • On Wikipedia, having no article at all is indeed preferable to having one without reliable sources. Verifiability and No original research are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and are essentially non-negotiable. • Again, there is no question about whether or not "The Game" is real. The question is entirely about finding sources which meet Wikipedia standards. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
DragonHawk, you're not the only one getting tired of repeating yourself... I've been discussing this article for years. I've pretty much given up now, but I check out these discussions from time to time.
Firstly, I did not create LoseTheGame.com "with the explicit purpose of justifying a Wikipedia article". I think people have confused this with SaveTheGame.org. I have said this many times now but it keeps getting brought up.
Secondly, all the citations I can find are on the Awards page at LoseTheGame.com. I can't link to it here as it seems to have been banned, so go to LoseTheGame.com slash awards.htm, or click the link on the main page.
What I believe to be reliable sources include:
  • De Morgen article by Jeroen Verelst. Daily readership: 50,000+
  • Daily Nebraskan article by Andy Boyle. Daily readership: 20,000+ "the fifth-largest circulation of all newspapers in the state of Nebraska"
What I believe to be evidence for notability includes:
  • Kiwi FM by Caleb Anderson. Listeners: 40,000+
  • Real Life Comic by Greg Dean. Daily readership: 60,000+
  • LoseTheGame.com by Jonty Haywood. Unique hits: 300,000+ (which includes 30,000+ people who were all redirected there on 27th September 2007 after a prank involving the BBC 10PM national news)
  • Facebook. Largest Game-based group: 20,000+ (70,000+ members of all Game-base groups)
  • BBC Radio 4. Listeners: 6,000,000+ "the second most popular British domestic radio station"
  • Kerrang! 105.2 Radio. Listeners: 1,000,000+
I have no evidence of the BBC Radio 4 mention or the Kerrang! radio mention. However, as I was interviewed by Kerrang! radio for a piece about The Game I am certain that it was mentioned, but someone will need to find evidence for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.182.1 (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we need to find citations for these sources. I have provided the De Morgen and Daily Nebraskan citation so we need:
  • Information about when The Game was mentioned on Kiwi FM, BBC Radio 4 and Kerrang and (even better) transcripts or sound clips of it. The Radio 4 one should be easy enough as I believe most of their stuff is stored on the BBC online archive.
  • The link to the Real Life Comic strip that mentions the Game (I have seen it but forgot to note the address).
You need to do what I do; find as much evidence as you can and wave it in their faces so they cannot deny it even if they want to. Bickering with them on the rules (while they are unfair and biased against things such as the Game) has got us no-where for years so a new aproach is needed. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an MP3 recording of the Kiwi FM mention on the LoseTheGame.com page I mention. The link to the Real Life comic is there too but nothing online can be used as a reliable source. As far as I'm aware it has to be published on paper so I'm not even sure whether the radio mentions count. But they are certainly all evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.76.48 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Anon @ 58.152.76.48: Online sources are acceptable, provided they qualify as a reliable source (see that page, and the pages it links to, for details). For example, a notable newspaper which publishes online is perfectly acceptable. • The reason many online sites are not considered acceptable is that they are often self-published sources by Wikipedia standards. For example, anyone can put anything they want on MySpace, so information published on MySpace does not help the cause of verifiability. Verifiability is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. If it cannot be verified by others, than it is not acceptable here. • An comic strip (in print or online) is not a reliable source for anything other than that comic strip. Think of this as writing a report for your boss/teacher. If you cited a comic strip as a source for something unrelated to that comic strip, do you think your boss/teacher would accept it? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Anon @ 84.69.10.98: Wikipedia is intended to be a verifiable encyclopedia of notable topics. If that makes you unhappy, I'm sorry, but your personal happiness is not Wikipedia's purpose. If you considered this "unfair and biased", then I kindly suggest you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. There are alternative outlets available if you would like to publish your opinions elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Anon @ 202.82.182.1: Thanks for the correction regarding the origin of the website. The big problem with LoseTheGame.com is that it explicitly advocates vandalism of Wikipedia. For a lot of people here at Wikipedia, that makes it highly suspect. That seems a reasonable reaction to me. • Unfortunately, and as I've stated above, most of the sources you and others have mentioned is they lack all the information needed to verify them. For a newspaper, we we need things like publisher address, issue, date, and/or page. For a radio program, studio address, date and time of original broadcast, the program/segment name, and the host's name. • It is also worth repeating that merely being mentioned, or mere popularity, does not constitute notability by Wikipedia standards. So just because some paper has a large circulation, and mentioned "The Game" off-hand in some column somewhere, doesn't mean it is notable by Wikipedia standards. The source has to assert that notability. • The Daily Nebraskan article is better than nothing, but it's pretty weak -- not enough to write an article about. • A fundamental problem here is the lack of verifiable notability. The page on "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" explain this problem. "The Game" is new, just as Scrabble was back in 1938. "The Game" is real, and it may be popular, but that doesn't give us verifiable notability by Wikipedia standards. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an online version of the De Morgen article on their website but you need an account to view it. The dates of the radio broadcasts are given on the LoseTheGame awards page, along with a lot of other information. Are you inferring that because LoseTheGame mentions Wikipedia vandalism as a strategy for playing The Game, that they may have forged the newspaper articles and radio recordings?
Ignoring the radio broadcasts, and going by Wikipedia policies and recommendations:
The De Morgen and Daily Nebraskan articles fulfill WP:Vs requirement for multiple published sources. And both mention how widespread The Game is, providing verifiable notability. Therefore this article should exist. 58.152.76.46 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To the above: I'm expecting DragonHawk to say that isn't enough to prove "verifiable notability".
To DragonHawk: Do you think the rules are being enforced as they were intended or purely in the wording? For example, rules intended to prevent things "made up in a day", hoaxes or innaccuracies being put on wiki (ie. "no amount of blogs or forums prove its existance") are being abitarily used to decide if the Game is notable or not. Now I can understand why blog and forum sources are unsuitable to create an accurate and legitimate article but if there are already verifiable sources for the definition why are blogs and forums unsuitable to prove that people at least know of its existance? The citable resources given previously prove that the Game is "verifiable" and the amount of resources online (deemed unreliable for completely unnconnected reasons) prove that it indeed has "notability". To deny "verifiable notability" of a topic that is verifiable and clearly notable is not, in my opinion, in the spirit of the rules that are being enforced. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
To the above. I agree completely, but let's not confuse matters. If we go entirely by Wikipedia policies:
  • Two published newspaper articles about The Game satisfies verifiability.
  • Both mention how widespread The Game is, providing verifiable notability.
So why is there no article DragonHawk...? 202.82.88.106 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This happens quite a lot here. Whenever you post a logical argument as to why this article should exist, everyone disappears....218.166.161.253 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As no one has explained why my points about verifiability and notability are wrong, I'll re-write the article based on the two sources and see what happens. 202.82.88.106 (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If people are going to start putting together a mock article here I think the article at h2g2 would be the best start point. If people could make up a version that inclueds the sources discussed here and remove obviously false claims (like the 19th century championship) I think we would be onto a winner! --84.69.10.98 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The big problem with LoseTheGame.com is that it explicitly advocates vandalism of Wikipedia." This, right here, is a serious issue. If it is truly the intention of followers of "The Game" to make it recognized here, and to use this site as a source, all references to vandalism must be removed. First, it discourages use of the site as a source, because the last thing bureaucrats want or need is more vandalism to clean up. Secondly, it establishes that the site is absolutely desperate to spread the word--which is not needed. Thirdly, Vandalism hardly even seems like a good tactic to use--it gets cleaned up PDQ around here. It's a non sequitor to the many users that don't play, an annoying obstacle to those who do (impeding someone's leisure time with irritating interruptions is not likely to make someone play), and a hassle to everyone involved. Just my two cents. I do believe an article is merited, and await the resolution of this case with great anticipation. Note also that whatever inflated popularity it may once have claimed, The Game is widely practiced now. 75.82.198.76 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of article in news source

Those advocating the creation of the article may want to refer to this article on CTV.ca ("Teens around the world are playing 'the game'", January 17, 2008). Certainly this would be considered a reliable source? --Scani (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. The Game, het eenvoudigste spel ter wereld. De Morgen. Photo of the printed article (registration required to view online article)
  2. 19th March 2007. Mind game enlivens students across U.S. Daily Nebraskan.
DragonHawk complains higher up about "No publication info. No issue, date, or page"
So, here is the reference information about the De Morgen article:
The Game, het eenvoudigste spel ter wereld. De Morgen of 15 March 2006, p. 2, by Jeroen Verelst
— Adhemar (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status

I am in disbelief that Wikipedia, still, to this day, carries its edit war about The Game forward. 3 AfDs ago or so, I belonged to a small minority who felt The Game and phenomena like it called for a different approach to the Wikipedia policies with regard to memetics, including a disclaimer at the top of the page. It is at this point very unlikely that The Game will make it into a tertiary source, and thus don't think it would ever make it into Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't, in the long run.

It does amuse me that, though I came "here about the mind game called "The Game", often characterized by the phrase, 'You lose the game'", and did in fact find information about it on its talk page. :)70.168.88.158 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd never heard of it until I read it right here. Clearly not notable. нмŵוτнτ 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I never heard of Frederick Douglass until I read it right here on wiki, by your same logic does that mean he is not notable and deserves to have his article removed? No, your own personal experience is worth as little as mine or anyone else's. What is important is the evidence of greater notability mentioned by others and myself in previous comments (which DragonHawk seemed to have disappeared since). The problem with this topic is that those that are demanding no article for the sake of it assume there is no case for the defence and have not read the evidence stated previously. I recommend you do so now. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prototype Article

I wrote this prototype article here about a month ago but someone seems to have removed it with no explanation. Here it is again, all the information is based entirely on the two published articles:

[edit] The Game (game)

The Game is an abstract mental game, the objective of which is to not think about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes loss, which must then be announced. The Game does not end, once a player stops thinking about The Game, they stop losing.

The Game is popular in the US and UK, mainly in schools and universities. It is also played in Brazil, Austria and Japan. Some players have developed strategies for making other people lose, such as writing "The Game" in visible places or hiding notes for people to find. The origins of The Game remain a mystery.

[edit] References

  1. The Game, het eenvoudigste spel ter wereld. De Morgen. Photo of the printed article (registration required to view online article)
  2. 19th March 2007. Mind game enlivens students across U.S. Daily Nebraskan.

[edit] New prototype article

I know have a new prototype article in my user space: User:Adhemar/The_Game_(game)

Everybody is encouraged to work on this and improve the article, in order to have a presentable article for Deletion Review. — Adhemar (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't the place

If you are going to delete my prototype article from this page with the comment "This isn't the place" then please tell me where "the place" is. Or preferably just leave it here for other (more constructive) people to comment on. Thanks. 202.62.103.8 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The place is in your userspace

I did have it in my userspace, but it was deleted by another admin who told me that userspace was not the place to keep prototype articles. I was told to move it to the discussion page for the article. As that page is protected, what should I do? Please discuss this instead of continually deleting it. This is a discussion page after all. 58.8.191.143 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This seems a little silly

The fact that everybody is arguing about the game clearly proves that it exists. Can't we atleast get a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.200.214 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Game was just referenced in an xkcd.com comic: http://xkcd.com/391/. I still think it's grey area in terms of verifiability, but it would be interesting to put up to a larger audience vote. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the newspapers articles (De Morgen, Daily Nebraskan) and radio time (BBC Radio 4) should be sufficiently verifiable sources to meet the "Reliable sources" criterion. And the references in webcomics (Real Life Comic, XKCD) could be an indication for the "Notability" criterion. So, in my opinion The Game (mindgame) definitely deserves a (short) Wikipedia article. If only for the convenience of those who turn to an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to look up the popular culture references in XKCD that they don't get, which is a popular use case for an encyclopedia. — Adhemar (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that we're not saying it doesn't exist. There are many things that exist & do not deserve articles in an encyclopedia. However, there is no reason an article cannot exist in the future, if WP:V is met. нмŵוτнτ 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to figure out what part of WP:V has not been met. There are now three reliable sources - Der Morgen, The Daily Nebraskan, and the Canadian Press. I've read all of the relevant portions of the Wikipedia regulations, and I don't see one that an article on The Game would be breaking. Can we now all agree that The Game, now meeting all qualifications, deserves an article? Bcdm (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I also never said that WP:V was not met at this time. нмŵוτнτ 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's technically true, yes, even if it was implied from the phrasing. Perhaps I haven't asked the proper question, then. My question to you and everyone else here is as follows - if I, or anyone else, were to create a new page for The Game (game), would you agree that it is a legitimate page and does not deserve to be deleted? If you believe that it would deserve to be deleted, why do you think so? "I think it's silly" is not a valid reason, no matter how true it may be - it would be a bias, which violates WP:NPOV. Bcdm (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Take it to WP:DRV, as KnightLogo says below. That's the only way to go about this. нмŵוτнτ 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We gladly will, yes, as soon as the prototype article is improved a bit. Let me ask the question a third time (the spirit of the question remains the same, as it has yet to be answered) - if we do take it to WP:DRV, now that there are three notable, verifiable sources for The Game, will you vote to overturn the deletion? If not, what would it take to change your mind? Bcdm (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would nominate it for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material. The proper place to try and restart this article is at DRV. KnightLago (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The first step in DRV is to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page. So, I left a note on Kyorosuke's (new name for Sean Black) talk page. — Adhemar (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I left this note over there: I believe DRV is the way to go in this case. I don't believe there is consensus at all. The sources being cited by these few users have been discussed multiple times and have already been deemed unreliable. There is nothing new being brought to the table to support the recreation of this article. KnightLago (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Our sources are reliable. They meet verifiability standards. I don't really see the issue. 75.82.198.76 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(If I try hard,) I can understand (but not agree) how people could argue that the subject is not notable enough. But I'm completely at a loss to understand on what grounds Daily Nebraskan, De Morgen could be considered unreliable. De Morgen is Flanders' second best quality newspaper. — Adhemar (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, these sources are "new" in the sense that they weren't known at the time the 3rd vote was taken – nobody mentioned them. At the time, there were already more votes keep than delete, but the lack of (then known) sources made the editor decide for deletion — a decision he then already admitted to be "not uncontroversial" — Adhemar (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There were a number of deletion review debates following the 3rd vote. In those debates these sources were discussed and found lacking. KnightLago (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking, and this is what I can find so far: If you know of other discussions, please provide the links.
Lack of verifiable sources has been a consistent complaint (argument pro deletion/against restoration) in all of them. A mention of an article in De Morgen has been entered as contra-argument into the discussion at the end of the second DR, though the complete reference (date, page) or photograph was not yet found. The Daily Nebraskan reference hasn't been mentioned at all. Neither are other references in popular culture (except for an alledged mention in The New York Times – no complete reference).
— Adhemar (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there were a few more deletion reviews. This has been discussed so much that it is considered a perennial request. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I had no idea I touched here one of Wikipedia's 3 most sensitive deletion/creation issues.
The perennial request page says: The Game (game) is probably not going to be undeleted until there are several decent-sized discussions (i.e. not just mentions in lists of memes), published in sources which have some evident authority and gravitas. We have by now been trolled so often on this that hearts are hardened.
It's sad to see how previous requests with less known sources now hardens the burden of proof for us, now that we have at least some sources. — Adhemar (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It also says: Please be aware that requesting review of a frequently reviewed case without an exhaustive and compelling case, bringing substantial new evidence not seen in previous reviews, may be seen by some as trolling, and, in some cases, may be grounds for an indefinite block.
Which brings me back to my point. If I want to know whether our sources are "new evidence not seen in previous reviews", I need to find all these reviews. You claim there are more of them besides the ones I found. Can you provide us with links (and did they all lack consensus like the previous ones?) — Adhemar (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where they are specifically, I tried a Google search but it didn't yield anything you don't have above. Which may be due to the way the DRV page is setup. I know they are there though. If you want to pursue this I would go through the deletion review archive after the dates from above and manually search forward. Do that and see if your sources have been discussed. I am 95% certain that they have already, but as I said, I couldn't find the discussion. If you really want to pursue this, get all of your information in order, check the archive and make sure your sources are new, and then go to DRV. But, make sure you have everything in order and that you have read all the previous deletion review debates on this subject. If you don't I guarantee someone will pop up with the link to the DRV's we can't find and hit you with them. If you do go to DRV, you need to create the article beforehand so people can see what you are proposing. The little sample above is not going to do it. The article you create needs to be cited line by line. Not simply listing sources. In short, if you go the DRV route, people will listen, but you had better have your ducks in a row. KnightLago (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I found some more AfD/DR so far. De Morgen was mentioned, other sources weren't. The pro-deletion argument changed from No reliable sources to (and I quote Perennial requests:) the sole source was not evidently authoritative and not backed by other sources.
After reading through this discussion page I have painstakingly ploughed through archived DRV logs and found two more DRVs, the first here and second here. (Click on "show" next to The Game section in each page to view the DRV.) I note that these only lasted mere hours (although I cannot explain why), but they are DRVs nonetheless. If this constitutes the "trolling" mentioned in the perennial requests entry then forgive me for suggesting that this seems rather unjustified - bringing a new, published newspaper article to the table seems reasonable when the article was deleted over the contested inadequacy of existing sources. It would seem rather false if "Every now and then another source comes up, usually a trivial mention in an editorial of some sort, and a brand new user comes along to request undeletion", refers to these DRV requests, since the new source here is not a trivial mention in an editorial by anyone's definition, nor was it submitted by a brand new user. I would imagine that a trivial mention in an editorial would consist of, for example, the line "By the way, we all just lost the game!" being thrown in at the end of an article on a totally different topic; a complete newspaper article discussing The Game and where/how it is played seems far from a trivial mention by anyone's definition. Wiw8 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I know have a new prototype article in my user space: User:Adhemar/The_Game_(game)

Everybody is encouraged to work on this and improve the article, in order to have a presentable article for Deletion Review.
— Adhemar (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Adhemar, a worthy attempt but I think my prototype article (on this page somewhere) is a better start as it is solely based on the two published sources. This is a requirement for all information in Wikipedia articles. LoserNo1 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
KnightLago, I am 100% certain there has not been a DRV since the Canadian Press / Daily Gleaner publication. LoserNo1 (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're encouraged to delete the examples if you think it will improve the changes of getting through DR. Still, I'd like to see the The Game in Internet culture bit staying. Also, make sure The Daily Gleaner reference stays. As you say, at the very least it's a new argument for DR. — Adhemar (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Adhemar, your prototype article has no chance of success. I am not saying that I disagree with the information in any way, just the fact that the majority of it is not based on printed sources. For a new article to be created it will have to be based solely on the three published sources. Any additional information will not be accepted. I have been arguing for the creation of this article for a number of years now so I know how strict the Admin are when it comes to The Game. The article I wrote below is based on the first two published sources. I will see if anything can be added from the Daily Gleaner article and post it on my talk page as you have done with yours. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a prototype article that I feel is much more likely to succeed in a DRV as it is solely based on the three known published sources
— LoserNo1 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, let's ditch all references to LoseTheGame.com, Save The Game .org, blogs, IRC, etc.
I would still
  • keep "The Game in Internet culture" with links to xkcd, Real Life. (Unless this is now against policy too, somehow).
  • reference the bits, statement by statement (which source says what). I kept the references to the Nebraskan low, somehow student newspapers are not looked upon too favorably by DRV admins.
I didn't know if you are inviting the public (hum, hum) to edit your user space page. So, I kept on the safe side, and created yet another version, based on yours.
Yet another version, without references to LoseTheGame.com, Save The Game .org, blogs, IRC
— Adhemar (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Unless this is now against policy too, somehow" Yes it is. The Admin are being ridiculously strict and require that something has been printed about this in order to be in the article. Everything in the article must be mentioned in one of those three sources. Referencing each bit is a good idea though. Also, is the "meme" bit mentioned in one of the sources? I used to argue against such a statement as technically everything humans have ever thought up is a meme. The Game is special as its rules represents memetic replicatory behaviour. I would delete the internet culture and the meme bit, and then I think you are ready to go. Bear in mind that the other stuff may be added later. Once the article exists it can be discussed on its talk page. LoserNo1 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right: none of the sources mentions the word "meme" literally, but then again, none of the sources mention the phrase "abstract mental game". Feel free to edit this as you see fit.
On your other point: I don't know how these DRV go, but I can't help to have the feeling that DRV admins are not very inclined to undelete articles that are too short, fearing to lither up Wikipedia with more "stubs". Even though Other stuff exists is not really a good defense, sections with "Subject in popular culture" directly linking to the referencing piece of culture (assuming it is notable), seems to be the norm. Maybe a very experienced Wikipedian can tell us whether inclusion of this section does more good (notability) or more harm (verifiably sourced) at DRV. Alternatively, we could leave the choice to DRV itself (with "keep without Internet culture" section as a third option). — Adhemar (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're right about not wanting it to look like a stub. Although maybe there is so more information we could add fromt the sources. I think the version you've put up is good and maybe we should go for it soon. I also think we should try to involve some admin who have not been involved previously for an unbiased verdict. LoserNo1 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Up-to-date list of sources

Two sources that fulfill WP:V and WP:N:

Other sources that support WP:N include:

I have no evidence of the Kerrang! radio mention. However, as I was interviewed by Kerrang! radio for a piece about The Game I am certain that it was mentioned, but someone will need to find evidence for this. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the CTV.ca article is actually from the Canadian Press, and not just a CTV exclusive, I would argue that it belongs in your first category, as it also satisfies both WP:V and WP:N. Bcdm (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, there is online evidence of the Canadian Press article being printed in The Daily Gleaner, a Canadian paper, on January 23rd:
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/liveit/article/190560 Bcdm (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsflash!

The Game has its third printed source. http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/liveit/article/190560 (for those of you that didn't notice it above) LoserNo1 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Game Debate

Made image into a thumb as to not disrupt format. Click here for a larger version.
Made image into a thumb as to not disrupt format. Click here for a larger version.
The above is absolutely true. Anyone who actually reads the whole history of the debate (which currently would be all the pro-Gamers as the anti's never seem to, which causes the circular nature of this debate) would see that each one of those has happened in just the last 3 months and repeated many more times the further you look back. The fact that anti-gamers keep asking for citations that have been posted multiple times proves none of these people are actually bothering to check if there really is any evidence.
The only person we managed to get a decent discussion with since I join this discusion four of months ago is DragonHawk but even he came along with no background reading and left when the justification for not having article got shakey (he acknowledged that the Game was citable and verifiable and notable but not technically "verifiably notable"). Then we had someone with the "I haven't heard of it so it doesn't exist" line, obviously believing that wikipedia is some kind of online diary for him. Then we had a case of the left and not knowing what the right hand is doing when two wikinazi's decided to start enforcing their own rules and deleting proto-articles on the user/discusion page claiming that it should be in the discusion/user page instead.
DragonHawk atleast had to common decency to acknowledge that the Game is not fake and will eventually have its article when notable enough all the other anti-gamers seem to be of the "WAHHHHHH! I could never have been wrong when I speedy deleted claiming it was fake! I must make sure it never gets an article no matter!" mentality. As I have said before, these people would still deny its existance if Bush himself say "Ah damn, I just lost the game! For those of you who don't know it, its an anti memory game and this is how you play..." in a state of the union address or claim that the recent XKCD comic was about Halo 3 or something.
I don't honestly think we can win this debate as the opposition is not mature enough to admit they could ever be wrong. Even the Perennial requests page dismisses all evidence of the Game, past, present and future, as "usually a trivial mention in an editorial of some sort". The Game is a special case apparently, with seemingly all wiki-editors under the orders to bend, break or even make up rules for the sole perpose of blocking an article for the game. 84.69.10.98 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, if you want it undeleted, go to deletion review & bring it up there. Talking about it here truly can't accomplish anything. Let me know if you need help opening a deletion review discussion. нмŵוτнτ 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think there's a possibility that instead of having an entire article for the game, there could be a mention of it, even a small one, at the bottom of the page with an offsite link to losethegame.com or similar? Or perhaps a short entry on the Internet phenomena with a link on the The Game page? Is it possible to strike a balance here? Sgt.widget (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I plan to bring this article to Deletion Review after multiple people have worked on it. (If nobody tries to improve it, I'm dropping the quest.) As an middle-of-the-road option between the "keep deleted" option and the "restore" option, we could also suggest the alternative option of adding a few paragraphs on the "The Game" disambiguation page, though I don't really like that option. That's not really what disambiguation pages are for. — Adhemar (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I requested unprotection of the page with reference to the new source (see here). Six minutes later my entry was removed by a bot... (see history) LoserNo1 (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the technical measures put in place to prevent people from making the article, qualify under the Wikipedia definition of "protection". Anyway, as seasoned Wikipedians (KnightLago, нмŵוτнτ) told us many times, Deletion Review is the way to go. I'd just like some work done on a proposal article before I bring it up there — Adhemar (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well this article I wrote a while ago is based entirely on the first 2 sources. I don't think the new article should include any information that isn't sourced (as should be the case with all articles on Wikipedia). Maybe some additional information can be added based on the third source. 86.156.168.154 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan to work on the article over this weekend - it's a very busy week coming up for me, so I'll have no time until then. We'll see if we can get something set up and ready for deletion review come Monday. Bcdm (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (game)

The Game is an abstract mental game, the objective of which is to not think about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes loss, which must then be announced. The Game does not end, once a player stops thinking about The Game, they stop losing.

The Game is popular in the US and UK, mainly in schools and universities. It is also played in Brazil, Austria and Japan. Some players have developed strategies for making other people lose, such as writing "The Game" in visible places or hiding notes for people to find. The origins of The Game remain a mystery.

[edit] References

  1. The Game, het eenvoudigste spel ter wereld. De Morgen. Photo of the printed article (registration required to view online article)
  2. 19th March 2007. Mind game enlivens students across U.S. Daily Nebraskan.

[edit] Redlinks

Hi. Please be aware that this page is not exempt from WP:REDLINK#Dealing_with_existing_red_links, and therefore I have re-added the potentially notable Scottish TV drama The Game - this is what I am referring to, if in any doubt. As the guideline states, "red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article". Please post here before removing the link again. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSDAB#Red links (which was quoted to me in the edit summary during the latest mistaken revert of my addition), DAB pages may contain redlinks if they are also redlinked in another Wikipedia article. And The Game (Scottish TV drama) is redlinked in Haldane Duncan (yes, and previously to me adding the link to The Game DAB, not after). I would be grateful if the editor concerned would kindly do me the courtesy of entering into dialogue here (as previously requested) to explain why he/she is reverting against guidelines. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Shelfskew, thank you. I will now go away. :) Ref (chew)(do) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your comments here--I just overlooked them somehow. I'm glad you were able to find a solution. I also looked for an article to link the entry to, but I guess your wiki-fu is better than mine. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)