Talk:The Game/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Words of A British Game Player

I have evidence from 2005 of British people (from the University of Kent at Canterbury where they learnt of the Game) playing and discussing the Game online. Also my co-worker at IBM from Warick University apparently used to write "You just lost the Game!" on whiteboards in lecture rooms to get people in the next lecture. I feel that its more than a little arrogant for those claiming that just because they hadn't heard of it before the article it must not exist. There are 53 variations of Tag listed in Wikipedia's article and not a single one has any sources at all (let alone the specific definition of "source" these people are demanding of a game that is based on trying to forget and not mention it). Why aren't these same people up in arms about Tag exactly as they are about The Game? Its because they apreciate that Tag (a child's game) is not the sort of thing that will have a rule book so everyone whose heard of it knows roughly what it is and how to play but there is no source to it. Why can't they then apreciate that The Game (a student game that you are meant to forget and not talk about) is likewise not the sort of thing that will have a rule book so everyone whose heard of it knows roughly what it is and how to play but there is no source to it. Summary To deleters: There is more online evidence for The Game than the rules and variations of Tag. No matter how much you remember your childhood variation of Tag it still fails against the rules you are applying to The Game with regards to sources and therefore by your own logic Tag does not exist and must have been invented by a couple of school-kids pranking wikipedia inventing a fake game, anyone indepentant who claims otherwise must be lying. Delete both or keep both or you are just another hypocrite. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign here if you want the game to be added

Please edit my post and Write your name if you want the Game to be in the list . The reason were already told. Plus The admins of the wikipedia in german (and other languages) agree in the game being added! 77.181.128.229 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the idea of signing one's name here as a vote wouldn't seem to do much good; even a quick glance of this page shows a formidable interest in bringing back "The Game" but the minority opposed mainly appear to be admins deleting it not because of lack of consensus, but rather because of lack of sources. Not to discourage you from trying to have a voice, but it might be more prudent to look for sources to corroborate "The Game"'s existence and prominence. Here's one ("Mind Game Enlivens Students Across U.S.") and here's another which is also referenced on Wikipedia itself. That's just a quick cheating look, I'm sure people can come up with others as I remember hearing about this Game well over a decade ago and I wasn't even living in the U.S. at the time (I might search around and add some myself later even). Phil Urich 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kroete7 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah.

Are you guys serious? The Game is unverifiable? Hah! I live in Akron, OH and i know at least 100 people IN MY HOMETOWN ALONE that play it. I travel, and when i tell people about the game some of them already know! This is a conspiracy to cover up the most clever games ever concieved. This is typical, though. You suppress knowledge. Good job.

I've found 4 or 5 articles I've wanted to read deleted now (mostly Musicians). But I'm very surprised the game isn't on wikipedia. I don't think people are trying to suppress knowledge on purpose, but I think that more exceptions should be made to the 'notability' rule, etc. -- Lionfish

Man, what happened? I think Wikipedia is a little too bureaucratic about this. ACielecki —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Who knows if the game is verifiable with anything you find of it most likely leading to 4chan or something awful, but it has become a iconic internet culture, and needs to be mentioned on the iconic internet data base of all thing useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.40.147 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

-- The admins of the german Wikipedia dont have anything against mentioning The Game hmm .... ~Sim-value~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.223.221 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's really messed up that there's no page for the game, I personally know dozens of players, and it's part of internet culture. losethegame.com, your verification. The Game used to have an excellent page here, please bring it back admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.68.3 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig?

Why does The Game (disambiguation) redirect to The Game rather than vice-versa? I have the feeling that some great admin is going to tell me some obvious Wiki-precedent that I don't know about, but I wanted to post this in the chance that this may be a mistake. Candent shlimazel 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think, basically, there's no overriding topic that means "The Game" more than anything else, which means that the disambiguation can safely sit at "The Game" without loss of generality. Foo (disambiguation) is only needed when there's a particularly dominant meaning of Foo (e.g. A Tale of Two Cities versus A Tale of Two Cities (disambiguation); the former being the book, the latter pointing to other uses). Kinitawowi 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Game

I navigated straight to this page looking for what Wikipedia had to say about "The Game" and was confused that I couldn't find any mnention of it, considering that Wikipedia has descriptions of just about every other stupid Internet meme out there. I think that The Game happens to be one of the more clever ones, too. Furthermore, it doesn't detract from Wikipedia's value in any way. I'm sure more people know about the game than some of the Pokemons or city councillers who have their own articles on Wikipedia that haven't been deleted. MarXidad 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am devestated, as am all my 100 friends or so whom play the game. I represent Warwick University, United Kingdom and our very dissapointed viewpoint!! I understand some of the points made below, however "the game" is real, relevant and an important part of the social fabric of many large groups of people in the UK and should be included on Wikipedia for those who would like to find out more about this important social phenomena. Kind Regards, Andrew Allen, Warwick University

I was thinking the exact same thing; unfortunetly given that I also went to Warwick University it seems my contribution is redundant ! Ryan Norman

I do not see why this article should continually be deleted. If written correctly, it serves as a good source of information on something that can be quite confusing to some. Whether it not it was created at a school has no grounding - take the card game Mao as an example. Mao (Card Game) has its own article, and the premise of it is very similar to this. I do not believe that people should have to be forced to go to urbandictionary to find information on this. EmileVictor 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that I would consider it worthy of wikipedia (despite it possibly failing wikis strigent notability rule, which I dare say thousands of wiki articles do), if the admins have decided that it shouldn't be here then the Please do not add "the game (game)(mind game)(intangible game)(memory game) etc.", it was only recently deleted, see this page's discussion page or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) notice needs to be more clear. As of today (11 April 07) it can be seen when you click edit for either The Game or Talk:The Game. However, clicking to edit a subsection of the game (e.g. Other) does not show this warning message. The warning, I feel, should appear either in all sections of the editing page, or a message should be displayed at the top of the actual (i.e. non-editing) page, to make it perfectly clear why the article doesn't exist and that it shouldn't be made. Although I disagree with it, I respect the admins' decision and think it should be more clear.

It's kind of ironical that something isn't worthy of inclusion, but these kind of measures have to be taken to stop people from adding it. Rygir 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you just say "ironical"? --SquidMoose 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Melancholy inquery as to the status of The Game (game)... any progress? --64.238.187.244 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up at school. Thank god that BS article is gone.

128.12.186.192 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very much not a small game made up by people at school. It is very widely played. I have successfully talked to multiple people who have no linking factor whatsoever about The Game, and they knew which game I was talking about. It is of note, even if you do not think so. It tells us a certain something of the mindset of modern society, displaying an appreciation of pointless but entertaining little things. The fact that I have said "pointless" does not negate my point, as it could be said in the same way that video games are pointless, and yet they are most definitely of note.

--129.215.45.67 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give some references to back up your claim it was made up by some random kids at school? I really wonder if that's where it came from. You sound rather frustrated with it, that doesn't give you the right to bite people's noses off. Rygir 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly people are utterly determined to ignore the comment tag that was placed at the top of this page. I therefore quote it in full: Please do not add "the game (game)(mind game)(intangible game)(memory game) etc.", it was only recently deleted, see this page's discussion page or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination). The article is gone. The Game was ruled non-notable and non-verifiable, and therefore not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. And that includes attempting to recreate it by discussion on this talk page. Get the hell over it. Kinitawowi 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you getting all worked up over this, obviously people don't agree with the decision, "Get the hell over it". If people are so adamant about it, there's probably a good reason for it... Rygir 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty dumb to make such a big deal about having this article removed. Whether people like it or not, "the game" is real to a lot of people, and it brings many people joy in a unique way. I think this page should not only stay up, but should be elaborated on and moved to the article section to make it easier for people to view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.60.149.131 (talk) 06:17, March 14, 2007 (UTC)

• The article was deleted. It was declared unsuitable to be included in Wikipedia, and the article space was salted to prevent further recreation. If you want that thing back, work on a write-up in user space (that will satisfy all the issues raised in the above-linked AFD discussion) and recommend it to WP:DRV. Until then, it isn't fit for Wikipedia and it shouldn't be recreated, even if by discussion on an article talk page. Kinitawowi 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some might consider it unfit for Wikipedia, but many of us (probably many more) think that it is. What's the problem with leaving it alone? What harm does it do? Why is there so much pressure keeping it off the site? It's really quite silly, The Game is quite notable, and deserves an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.93.238.196 (talk) 02:57, March 18, 2007

• Did you even read the AFD discussion? It isn't notable. It fails WP:RS and WP:NOTE. It has no authoritative verifiable sources. It's a cruft magnet. Without a properly verifiable source, there's no way to identify the ruleset, which means that each and every single crappy rule variant that anybody can think of was being shoved into it (probably the single biggest reason why it's gone). It got so ridiculous that I'm working on a write-up for WP:LAME. That's why. Kinitawowi 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First, there was, as far as I can tell, no notice on the top of the page at the time of this discussion, and I've gone through the history. So unless someone was somehow broadcasting a notice onto this page without editing it, complaining that the notice was ignored is silly, there was no notice to ignore.

Second, saying it fails notability doesn't take into account that notability is hugely controversial right now, and has been under a great deal of discussion of late (and that the last time The Game went into AfD it was far different from when it had passed) and may be returned to essay status.

Lastly, there is/was a verifiable source which did identify the rules. In fact, for a large period of time, that was what the article for The Game included, just what the Belgian newspaper said. The rule variants were deleted as they were found, and by no means should have been a reason for deletion. No one would advocate deleting any article because it got defaced frequently (at least, not and have their argument fly, otherwise Steven Colbert would control the fate of wiki). That's an argument for protecting the article, not deleting it. Darquis 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "comment at the top of the page" that I referred to is, as I intended to imply, commented out - it's only visible in the page's edit box. (Clearly that was too vague a provision to resolve this, for which I apologise. The same comment appears twice on this article's actual page - and people still continue to ignore it.) It failed notability at the time the ruling was made, and as far as I can tell nothing has been done to improve notability other than to make the notability/attribution/whatever criteria more confusing; fuzzy rules are still rules. And it failed verifiability and RS at the time the ruling was made as well, because of a stipulation requiring multiple non-trivial sources (one newspaper article alone wasn't enough to satisfy that, and the non-triviality of that source was/is in question - and that's before the considerable effort expended by a large number of people in attempting to locate additional sources, and disregarding some stated efforts by certain groups to attempt to create sources...). As the DRVs have suggested; if somebody wants this back they're welcome to work on it in userspace and propose an improved version for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Until then, feel free to contribute to User:Kinitawowi/The Game (LAME). Kinitawowi 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I only saw that when I went to edit the page after reading this...because I wasn't trying to add the article back yet. Kinda amusing to me. Attribution seems to be a criteria it could meet now, assuming of course that it actually stays how it is, I guess that's controversial too. But right now it doesn't seem to say multiple is the requirement, in as much as it says you have to have a reliable source (I think we do, a secondary one at that) and not start adding stuff that you can't back up with your source. We had the Game article distilled to that anyway (and to prove my point, this is directly from Wikipedia:Attribution "This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." We have that!) Right now, I think the article technically meets notability too ("A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable."). I only wish that damn article was in English. If it were in an English paper of a similar distribution, I'm not even sure this thing would get AFD/DRV/etc. so often Darquis 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that last sentiment... at least that way it might be possible to verify that it meets the notability criterion you quoted (it doesn't right now, as that news article offers no indication as to who wrote it and under what circumstances - on that count it certainly fails attributability, and until it can be confirmed that they didn't just borrow the article from Wikipedia both independence and reliability are in questin too). And if WP:ATT is looking to remove the need for multiple sources, I'll be violently voting against it for modifying an existing policy in a way that drives standards down, not up. Kinitawowi 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that The Game is comical by nature, and therefore the temptation to make a comical article is great. This is, however, an encyclopedia. Which is precisely why I would like to see a suitable article about The Game. ~ 67.142.130.40 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And which other encyclopedias have you submitted this game to? —Cryptic 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about ED and Uncyclopedia? (which we all know you know about, despite your hatred of ED) 204.49.209.155 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the distinct impression that breath of coverage and lightning-fast reaction times are our greatest advantages. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. --Kizor 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any encyclopedia that covers even remotely as many topics as this one, seems only logical this would be the first one... anyway, I was looking for articles about a similar recent "fad", and the first thing I could come up with was extreme ironing, which has a significant list of references it seems. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but after a brief look I got the following impression : They started with an "official site", later, this site's content was repeated at various other websites earning it "multiple" sources... so what exactly makes it notable? It's basically the same content over and over, just rewritten a bit. One argument for deletion is that people kept adding unofficial rules, which would make it a game with a lot of derivatives, but there are 3 official rules (as listed on www.losethegame.com) so it's not like there isn't an official ruleset... I fail to see why something needs a lot of mainstream media coverage to become "notable" by wp standards. In depth scientific topics certainly aren't judged by the amount of random publications? Personally, I think the game might not deserve it's own page, but it's one heck of an example of a meme and thought exercise. Rygir 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the main problem is that people keep vandalizing the article with derivative rules, then once it's back up (crosses fingers), it should be protected, no? ~ 67.142.130.18 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Otherwise, we shouldn't have an article on elephants, that Colbert character's certainly got it vandalized once or a few dozen times. Darquis 09:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has access to that DeMorgen's paper who could get the author/title of that article? If we had that, we'd be one step closer to getting the article back. Heck, I think with that, assuming the author wasn't just homeless guy off the street, we'd be where we needed to be. Darquis 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is clearly the opinion (maybe not consensus, but Wikipedia Is Not A Democracy) that The Game (meme) is not deserving of a page in its own right (based on current sources or lack thereof), why can we not add

• The Game, a meme

to the page The Game. There's no need for every item on a disambig or pseudo-disambig page to be a link surely? M0ffx 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Game, a meme more notable than half of the ones listed on this website. But the administrators of Wikipedia do not give a **** for whatever non-encyclopedic reasons they may have, and therefore, it will not be created. Let's cite some notable sources to prove notability, and maybe we will get somewhere with regard to having an article, or perhaps so little a mention here.

-- Mik 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

? So the word lol is somehow more encyclopedic than the game? Everybody plays it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL_%28Internet_slang%29 I don't see how that works. For every day that passes I loose more and more faith in the sensibility of wikipedians. You don't see lol in any dictionary or something, the amount of wikipedian qualification going for the mare equal, but we can all agree we should have lol, right? In another vein, I don't see how mentions on internet forums and blogs and now the dedicated communities counts not as a source for, at the very least, an internet meme.

Ok. I've been going back and forth through this discussion over and over, and all I can see is that "there's no proof" is Wikipedia's excuse for deleting the article. www.losethegame.com and Ilostthegame.org are both notable sites about The Game, having the general rules of The Game and in the case of losethegame, a map showing where the game is being played (if you think it's just an in-joke, the whole world must be in on it). There's even a wiki dedicated to it. I find it rediculous that Wikipedia won't allow an article that actually has references to say because someone thinks it's "silly," when Uncyclopedia has a conprehensive and accurate (!) article on the subject. And as the previous poster has mentioned, internet forums are considered first-hand source for the same reason an interview would. Either way, RealCTY and Savethegame are both trying to get The Game news coverage (much like All Your Base) so that we can have a "real" source just so all this bickering can be put to an end. Noitch. 206.192.18.13 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, notability Nazis strike again! Thank god we still have our 6 page article on Pikachu. -71.29.193.111 —Preceding comment was added at 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about

The above 3 discussions don't actually divulge the subject of the controversial article. Making them incomprehensible to most people. I'm assume the article is now The Game (treasure hunt)? ··gracefool☺ 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If we had an article you could find out.

The Game in question is a meme in which, if you think about The Game, you lose. There is no article at the moment, which is why people are complaining.

And personally, I would say it's quite notable, the biggest problem is, it's not the kind of thing you write stuff about. But then, LOL isn't the kind of thing you write stuff about. And I'm using the same example, because I'm not creative enough to come up with a new one. :P Seriously, though, it's all over the place, and if it's edited too often, well, so is StarCraft. -Littlebeast(Not a user) 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this has gone on long enough. Odds are, there won't be an agreement for a long time, but arguments aside, The Game is well-known enough to constitute an article. If it wasn't, why would there be this much backlash from this many people over the deletion of the article? The Game exists, it's played by lots of people (who just lost if they're reading this), and for the large part is misunderstood by those who would simply pass it off as silly or pointless. To be truthful, there are a lot of silly and pointless things on Wikipedia, since such designations are subjective. I say, find a "reliable" source (what is reliable, anyway? Because apparently, Wikipedia hates web sources now) and put a link to it instead of an article. I've been playing the game for over a year (not long compared to some of you) and know that there are enough people at least within my own school who know about it (not even going to mention my coworkers) and have reasonably similar knowledge of The Game to not argue over the rules all the time. So there MUST be something. But it's these kind of disputes that make Wikipedia an unreliable source for schoolwork. Some of my teachers won't even take sources CITED by wikipedia because anyone can come on and change things for no reason, and chances are they'll stay that way a while. -70.161.6.67 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. BTW, ilostthegame.com has the basic rules, though Savethegame is more in-depth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.6.67 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Life Comics references the game as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAidley (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I emailed this to the web folks at the Game website: I think the Game is cool. It's a neat idea, and I can appreciate your desire to market in as many effective ways possible. However, I take exception to your endorsement of wikifiti (wiki graffiti) to advertise your thing. While not illegal, it's just really irritating. Wikipedia has already had to harden up because of people tagging articles with their nonsense. It's little better than urban dictionary at this point - and I'm amazed it has any quality whatsoever considering how people abuse it. Just my 2 cents, I guess. It would be silly for me to mention that I won't play the Game if you folks want to market at all costs ... I'm sure you have plenty of people playing. On the other hand, I can verbally abuse anyone who wears a Game shirt or talks about it. It's not illegal, it's just really irritating. I guess I'll check back again in a couple months to see if you've dropped the offending exhortation to mar Wikipedia with your advertising. There's a slim chance you care, after all. Thanks!

I firmly believe that as a community, people who care about Wikipedia have a right to defend it against attempts to damage it, by reversing that damage and inhibiting it in ways that cause no harm. Slowing the spread of the Game by refusing to advertise for it is certainly a good way to go. As soon as the wikifiti stops, I'd say it makes sense to put an entry in for the Game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.22 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

spam

Since the links to the sites which discuss The Game are spam protected, I can't edit the section above which includes those sites, so let me try this in a new section.

In order to write an article on the meme, you are going to have to provide reliable sources. No one has yet to do so. Therefore, as The Game violates the basic tenet of Wikipedia as discussed at WP:V, there can be no article. Provide sources (and none of those linked above qualify), and there can be an article. Corvus cornix 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

I'm very curious to know the group of people that are pro The Game the article, and the group of people who are against. What age group do you think? Also, I'm very confused. Could someone, in their own words (without giving me a Wikipedia guidelines page), give me the definition of reliable source? One that is not a logical fallacy please. This comment is no way implying or forcing an opinion, it is due to my own confusion. Hopefully someone can help me out here  Dooga  ^Talk 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

THE GAME: My Opinion

Disregarding everyone else's opinions on the matter, I think that The Game (the YOU CAN'T WIN THIS GAME game, for disambiguation) should at least have its own article as an Internet phenomena, at least as a stub or something. Although it's virtually impossible to find any "official" documentation on it, as long as the originator doesn't come forth (with some form of validity, of course, something also virtually impossible on the Interwebs), which means there will pretty much always be people opposing its existence on the Wiki, there's no doubting that it's prominent - and it's growing. I've seen a number of people playing it as well, and it's something that has been rooting itself in the entirety of the Internet for a while, and it's still moving fast. As a phenomena, at least, I feel it fully deserves a page; at least in my opinion, there are a number of articles that have less merit than this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.200.18 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• You've hit the probilem right on the head with your second sentence - 'virtually impossible to find any "official" documentation'. Wikipedia is not a primary source, it's tertiary - and without any official record of the game's existence, it's prime made-up-in-school-one-day fodder. Many, many people have spent a long time trying to come up with some form of official attribution for this, scouring websites and articles and old newspapers and college reports, and do you know what they've come up with? One anonymous totally unsourced article from a newspaper in Belgium. For something which is apparently a worldwide internet phenomena, that's clearly not going to cut it. Find some official documentation and I'll join the queue of people clamouring for it's return. Until then, it's not going to happen. Kinitawowi 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speaking of documentation, the Daily Nebraskan ran an article about it called "Mind game enlivens students across U.S." at here. If this doesn't count, I don't know what will. Rendon.smug 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly, it doesn't. It cites losethegame.com as it's source for information, a website founded in response to the deletion arguments with a stated aim to locate, and if necessary plant, sources. Given these dubious connections, we can't guarantee that this is an independent source, so it can't be accepted. Pretty sure this was the ruling on this article last time, too. Kinitawowi 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the background of a story doesn't matter in the slightest - if a newspaper article meets WP:RS, it makes no difference who the journalist has decided to quote or interview. --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You will notice that the article's topic is "Mind game enlivens students across U.S." and that the author goes into further detail about Nebraskans playing the game - none of this is taken from losethegame.com. In any case I would like to try to understand why the fact that the article quotes a website that you personally disapprove of as one of its sources for the rules of the game means that this article "doesn't count" as a source? I am of the understanding that it is the media's job to verify what they write about, and an encyclopaedia's job to ensure that articles have media (or other equivalent) references. It's not up to the encyclopaedia to vet the media's sources. Am I wrong? 86.134.117.141 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There's been a change in the dictate of WP:RS, then; it no longer seems to require sources independent of the topic (or if it does, I can't find that requirement). This article explictly quotes losethegame.com as a source for information (the rules, among other things), a website with (initially) apparently noble goals ruined by a stated intention to plant media sources. It's not about me "personally disapproving" of this website: if I was the only person who disapproved then the article would have been recreated aeons ago (and just go back and read through all the deletion debates to see how many other editors, many of whom were admins, also distrusted anything related to this site). Yes, it's up to the media to make sure they get it right, and the encylopaedia doesn't vet the media; but the encyclopaedia does vet the encylopaedia, and if there's a question about the independence, authenticity and accuracy of a source then that needs to be addressed before a source can be admitted. I'm not convinced that those questions have been addressed. However, the procedure is simple enough - if you want this article back, recreate it in userspace and submit it to WP:DRV for consideration. Arguing about it here is a waste of time. Kinitawowi (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Kinitawowi, I did not found LoseTheGame.com "in response to the deletion arguments with a stated aim to locate, and if necessary plant, sources". I think you are confusing it with SaveTheGame.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.134.3 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for The Game

• De Morgen article by Jeroen Verelst. Daily readership: 50,000+
• Kiwi FM by Caleb Anderson. Listeners: 40,000+
• Daily Nebraskan article by Andy Boyle. Daily readership: 20,000+ "the fifth-largest circulation of all newspapers in the state of Nebraska"
• 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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.134.3 (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Kerrang! 105.2 Radio. Listeners: 1,000,000+

All of the above fail to actually cite the specific source. They just mention an "article" or a radio station or whatever. Please see WP:CITE. For starters, you might at least mention the date and title of an article. • Further, things like a web comic or a Facebook group are not, by any stretch, reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Try actually addressing this as a boring old encyclopedia article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to the sources for most of these can be found at LoseTheGame.com + /awards.htm (which I can't link to here as it is spam apparantly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.22.214 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this in perspective?

Hi, I'm scythe33. I mostly bother with the scientific sections of Wikipedia, but I ended up here when I searched for this after someone told me about 'the game'. It seems like lot of you guys are Wikilawyering with the conditions for Verifiability and Notability. The verifiability and notability policies are the way they are for some very good reasons:

• verifiability is meant to ensure that Wikipedia is as accurate as possible.
• notability is meant to ensure that Wikipedia is not full of cruft.

Verifiability, it would seem, is almost silly with this. Nearly every link I've seen that discusses this gives the exact same three rules. While the lack of an argument against an idea is hardly proof, I find it highly doubtful that the real rules of 'the game' are any different from those three-though there are obviously variants. Notability here is different. It's pointless to have an article on an encyclopedia if nobody will ever look for information on it in that encyclopedia. By that same token, it'd be ridiculous for us not to have an article on something that many people would want information on-not having an article on XKCD, for example. We can't just pass it off as "here are 8 people who looked it up", but there is another way to look at the question:

• It's rare that someone will look for information on something if they were told about it by its creator. If your friend is in a garage band, the only source of information you need is him.
• It's rare that someone will look for information on something they hear about in a context that is unimportant to them, such as an internet advertisement.
• It's not so rare that if someone hears about something outside of those two possibilities, they might want more information-or, indeed, to verify it.

Now, the person who created the Game is not known, which means that the first possibility is not valid. Now, a google test is hardly a good argument for making an article, but the nature of the results that Google provides is meaningful. Many of the links go to rather-popular Internet forums. Users on (most) Internet forums usually tend be interested in things they read there-otherwise, they probably would not continue to be active members. Also, with considerable amounts of mentions on forums with large membership, it's not unlikely that a large number of people are reading the threads mentioning the game. If we really want to make sure that we give people information they might want, it'd be good to have an article on the game. At the same time, though, we need to consider the potential for a good article on the game. If anyone is willing to write it, they could write it in a comment here, or as a sub-page to their userpage, and those who had a problem with the original article(s) could make changes or suggestions they feel are necessary for a week or so, as needed, so that the new version will not be as flawed as the originals (apparently) were. Thanks, Scythe33 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done both the things you suggest multiple times. Apparently putting an article on your userpage is against some policy... You might be able to find a version of the old article somewhere, most of which were well written, but I think they have all been purged from Wikipedia history (another policy apparently...) OblongCheez (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people are campaigning to get "The Game" added solely on the grounds that "it's cool" or "all their friends play it", and that snowballed and resulted in a lot of vandalism and circular sources. losethegame.com even went so far as to promote an automatic vandalizing tool. This makes "The Game" appear to be more of a persistent vandalism meme than a "real" phenomenon. Like any other organism, when attacked, Wikipedia puts up defenses. The best way to counter this would be top-notch citations to extremely well-known and complete reliable sources. Those have largely failed to materialize; hence the problem. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I always go to BBC News for these types of things. I got this, but it's in h2g2. I suppose it's a start, but that's as far as I'll be taking it. Scythe33 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, but I feel this needs a true discussion.

There are two true requirements to qualify for an article: Notability and Verifiability. If I can satisfactorally show that "The Game" is both of these (at least as notable and verifiable as any given article), then who would argue that it should not have a page? First, notability. Many against creation say that this subject is completely unnotable, like your best friend and your blog. They say that "The Game" is just something a 10th-grader invented and wants an article on. It's not notable. But then what is hopscotch? The same thing. But it has an article. While the game may not be as well-known as hopscotch, it is at least as well known as Believe It Or Not, Joe's Walking On Air. If it weren't notable, why are so many people trying to create it?

Second, verifiability. There are numerous websites dedicated to the game, and while none of them are exactly a "city paper", they do exist. Since these websites exist, there is knowledge of the game. If the game didn't exist, how could these websites know about it? If enough people play the game for it to be notable, then it MUST exist. Therefore, since it's notable, it logically exists. It can be logically verified. If something is notable, it exists. If it exists and it is notable, as per meta:Wiki is not paper, it should have an article.

To summarize: If this were not notable, there would be very few people trying to make this an article. If a majority rules that this is notable, then it is. If it's notable, then it must exist; if not in actuality, then the shared idea.

Please point out any flaws, I'll be happy to fix them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.164.23 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Notability", on Wikipedia, does not mean what you think it means. The fact that lots of people are trying to shove it into Wikipedia does not make it notable. Please read the guideline on notability. The fact that any number of arbitrary web sites mention it also does not meet criteria for verifiability. They need to be reliable sources. Please read that guideline, too. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.