Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

I'm trying to add some simple changes to the article based on the external site losethegame.com which seems to be the only external site with a large number of players and people who ultimately decide on the rules. The wikipedia article currently (incorrectly states) that once someone is told of the game, they start playing. This is utterly not true:

" Everyone is playing the game. They always have been and always will be. Participation in a game requires neither consent nor awareness of its existence. Only when someone has told you about The Game does it become possible to lose, unless you independently create The Game. The creator of The Game was the first person to realise he was playing, and therefore the first person to lose. " "Rule 1". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

Therefore the first rule should be "The player is always playing the game". Since this article states "after someone has been told of the same, the following rules apply", then only rules 2 & 3 apply anyways, because rule 1 applies in all cases (even someone that has not been told of the game).

I don't understand why someone reverted these changes by mocking losethegame.com, because it is the ONLY external source with information on the game, and I thought Wikipedia has a strict rule against no original research or new material. Since I was only citing a source, reverting my changes and saying "this isn't true" is akin to saying the reverter somehow knew better? Based on what sources? --74.56.245.89 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This IS original research. Whether it's being conducted on an external site or not, if it can't be verified, it can't go in the article. And I can't see nonsense like "The Game has existed from the dawn of time" ever being considered verifiable information. WarpstarRider 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's about the quality of the external source. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources discusses what sources are useful to us. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia - an attempt to collate reputable academic work from elsewhere. All research is original at some point - the point is that wikipedia cites other people's research, rather than doing our own. In citing other people's work, though, we have to be careful not to treat something as useful just because it's on the web: we cite reputable academic journals, news sources, etc. Losethegame.com is a great site, but it's a fansite, not a useful source. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with what you're saying, but please show me "reputable academic journals, news sources, etc." currently cited in this article. The only source is a newspaper which doesn't contain most of the information presented in this Wikipedia article. My point is that this article was written by someone with 0 sources, and only after was the newspaper link added (which doesn't explain all the things presented in this Wiki article). All I'm trying to do is actually add sourceable material. So again, currently, the page has 0 good or bad sources. I am trying to add 1 "non reputable academic" source, but is that really worse then having 0 sources to back the stuff up? --Ionescu007 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same article here? That newspaper article is the only reason this Wiki article even exists right now. This article was written specifically to include only the information that was used in the newspaper source, after all the deletion debates. WarpstarRider 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I say Ionescu007 has a go. I don't think better sources exist. Kim Bruning 08:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because there aren't more reliable sources doesn't mean we can start adding in stuff from random fansites. This is what caused the whole deletion fiasco in the first place. WarpstarRider 09:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the deletion debates were silly. Kim Bruning 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the deletion debates were silly, but until all of Wikipedia's contributors agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on verifiable information and stop trying to incorporate factoids based on their truthiness we seem doomed to either repeat the silliness or abandon the goal of creating an encyclopedia. --Allen3 ^talk 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Before the deletion debates, the article was an absolute mess. It was filled to the brim with unverifiable nonsense like what's being suggested at the top of this section, and it was taken to AfD over and over because not a bit of it was backed up by reliable sources. The newspaper article that was found is the only reliable source we have, and so it's the only thing this article can be based on until more (reliable sources) are found. A fansite for The Game doesn't qualify.

This has all been discussed numerous times throughout this talk page. WarpstarRider 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, so there's a fansite for something that's nn/doesn't exist. <blinks twice> Hokay. Well, I'll leave you to it then :-) Kim Bruning 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a fansite for one of my friends. He's also non-notable. --Liface 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he claimed to be non-notable because he doesn't exist? ;-) Kim Bruning 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he's claimed to be non-notable because not enough people care about him to a warrant a Wikipedia article. Look, I'm a fan of The Game just like you and I voted keep on every deletion nomination. Wikipedia has these rules to prevent vanity articles from being created and kept. We have to play by the rules here. --Liface 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this game, and I helped write many of those rules by now. So as you might imagine, I'm sitting here scratching my head a bit as to why they don't seem to be working out ok here.  :-) Kim Bruning 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I run losethegame.com and, although I have kept the information as accurate as possible, it definately doesn't fit the criteria for Wikipedia because I could just make anything up if I wanted. What I do wonder about though is whether some of the early forum posts about The Game can be used as a source. I think this has been discussed before but I don't remember anyone reaching a sensible conclusion. It is not as if we are saying "Someone in a forum said the sky is green so let's use that as a source". What we are saying is that "The Game existed with these rules at this date". For example, the "The Game has always existed" was how The Game was described in Jamie Millers 2002 post way before the De Morgan article was printed. I guess this all depends on whether the forums might have been edited since the entry was made. I received an email from someone claiming to know the person who wrote the De Morgan article and they say that they explained The Game on Dutch radio. Could this be used as a source if I can find evidence of it? Kernow 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio sounds like a good plan for me. Man, if only this hit the US airwaves. --Liface 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet again someone removed the "special" from "The Game is a special example of a meme". Kinitawowi asked "What's so special about it?"

This probably stems from confusion over what a meme is. Many people use the term "meme" to refer only to "fads" or an idea which spreads quickly. In fact, any idea is a meme, any information that can be stored in the human brain. Anyone that actually read the meme article would be aware of this. Why The Game is a special example of a meme is clearly stated in the sentence, because it's rules are the fundamental rules of memetic replication. The word is necessary because otherwise the sentence is meaningless. Every game is a meme. Hopefully people will read this before editing the sentence again. Kernow 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the real page and replaced it with 'I lost?' Does anyone know what happened to the real page, and why it was deleted?

~Dark_Aphotic

Click here: [[1]]Sethie 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats terribly rough. It certainly exists- anyone can google it and recieve a great number of relevant hits. I myself am a "player" (UK, was introduced by real life people, not the internet). Fact of the matter is, if something exists and is aknowledged by millions, it should not simply be ignored by an encyclopedia. Patch86 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait until more major news sources cover it before remaking the article. --Liface 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

wiki has clear guidelines, the game didn't meet them.Sethie 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would a major news source cover The Game?--dannycas 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Look how big it's gotten in just a few years. I wouldn't be surprised. --Liface 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted because of a change in Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (WP:N). These now require multiple published sources, not just one. Kernow

Bingo Sethie 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I should probably say that these reccomend multiple sources (as opposed to "require") as WP:N is only a guideline. Kernow 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And it wasn't a change. At the very most is was a change of emphasis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now here's the rub. By its nature, The Game is a purely verbal tradition. Physical documentation is going to be rare. I've been playing it for about a year now (and was warned that it would quite possibley ruin my life). How does Wikipedia treat other oral traditions? -- Aardvarkoffnords 22:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless its the subject of non trivial articles that are verifiable from reliable sources then its probably not going to have an article. This would apply to any oral tradition be it a Dreamtime story of Indigenous Australians or the game. Gnangarra 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.realcty.org/mw/index.php/The_Game http://www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm

A wiki page (editable by anyone) and someones personal page do not meet WP:RS or WP:V. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the same discussion, can still continue, even with the AfD closed! :) Sethie 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's about following the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the rules -- according to certain wikipolicy. Anyways, as it happens, I've looked at those 'multiple sources' and agree. Nobody's saying that 'The Game' doesn't exist. But if it hasn't been published properly it's arguably not notable enough to get into wikipedia. However, if for example you came up with 2 million results on google for "The Game" (accurate hits by the way, not 2 million pages talking about various games) then that would be something to go with. Wiki-admins (both the idiots and the remotely decent ones) rightfully frown upon blogs and small websites. Finally, in my devil's advocate, I will say that we can't have a Games article on every single miny game under the sun -- especially the less prominent ones. That's my 2 cents. Rfwoolf 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted because of a guideline (WP:N), not policy. The difference being that guidelines are overruled by common sense. The fact there has been so much discussion over the existence of this article, and so many failed deletion attempts, proves that this article is a special case. Also, the guideline that it now violates is a very recent addition to WP:N (i.e. since the previous AfD). I'm not saying that this article should definitely exist, but it should definitely be considered as a possible exception to these recent changes in Wikpedia guidelines. Kernow 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Kernow 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, the article was deleted because of a probable violation of WP:RS which had been considered to be codifying WP:V, which is policy. WP:N is a separate justification for deletion.)

There is only one (possibly) reliable source as to the existence of the game, and none for the rules variants which have been added to the article from time to time. (I say "possibly", because even the Dutch-speaking editors don't seem sure as to whether this might be a "human interest" story which was not fact-checked by the paper.) I suppose, contrary to the normal guidelines on links, the Google Usenet Archives might be considered a reliable source as to the claimed existence of the game. I don't see this as being worthy of being kept, or being maintainable as article if it were to be kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

    You guys are thuper toopid. after losing the game, as I learned it, you have 5 MINUTES to forget about the game, not 1 hour or 1/2 hour
               ChickenLad

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.[2]" 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)

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)

You guys know nothing!! As I learned it, you have 5 minutes to forget about the game before losing it again. I lost the game.

-ChickenLad 16:44, 27 July 2008

The talk page? J. W. 10:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I was able to add the link, no problem[3]; 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)

I am in agreement that the site shouldn't be listed here. Despite it being one of the largest sources of the game on the internet it actively encourages email spam and even allows download of a file designed to spam random Wikipedia articles. If they want featuring as an official source here they need to stop abusing the rest of the site. M1ke 14:53, 16 July 2008 (BST)