Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about The Game (mind game). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Removing the thing saying that the creator of XKCD tried to free people from the game

Um, I seem to remember reading that the creator said that it was actually a plot to get people to lose the game, rather than actually an attempt to free people from the game. If this is the case, as I believe it is, I think we should remove the thing saying that it was an attempt to free people. ObiBinks (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, xkcd hasn't been mentioned for a long time, so the point is moot. --Zarel (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

just wanted to point out

Just by the way.. you can win the game. If you know of the game and you die not thinking about it you win!!! correct this on your page !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilmoyse (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You're absolutely correct:

Someone really needs to sort out the grammatical issues in this article, it really looks dumb if you don't use capital letters for the start of sentences and proper nouns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.76.76 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fix it yourself instead of just saying "someone needs to ...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.135.195 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's protected... 124.178.40.210 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As a Little Joke...

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

That would be entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but most encyclopedias would not bother putting some trivial piece of 'information' such as The Game in their book now would they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.82.31 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is too srsly srs. The one line could practically be an article itself. ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jokes aren't really well placed in what is supposed to be a resource. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's always Uncyclopedia if Wikipedia is too serious for you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I told you before, if I forget to, LOG OUT my freakin' account before making your own edits. ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hes talking to me, sometime I use his computer and he never logs out. If he was that srs about it... then why doesn't he log out himself. ;DDD Anyway, seems no one likes the idea x.x Though I personaly think it could be added somewere, in a quote box or something, sence it is 'the game'. 24.61.102.23 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add it in the upper right corner, in an info box, or in some hidden location on the page (per rules, of course)

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

This is NOT Unfunnypedia / ED. Esper rant 02:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever read Samuel Johnson's "Dictionary" or heard of Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary"? Example: "Grave, n. A place in which the dead are laid to await the coming of a medical student". 76.227.79.194 (talk) Eric Ferguson —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

It should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph that the reader just lost the game, because of rule 1 "everyone is playing the game" is it irrelevant whether they have heard about the game before or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.248.16 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe in a trivia section? "Trivia: - the game is fun blah blah bla (insert more facts here) and in the end - You lose The Game - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.207.226 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the picture for the article is good enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.139.54 (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be perfectly encyclopedic to point out the irony of the readers situation (losing the game). It could also be pointed out (in order to make the reader better understand THE GAME) that they will be losing the game as long as they are thinking about the fact that they are losing, and will not be aware of when they stop losing because they wont be thinking about it (and as soon as they realize they were not losing, they begin losing again). An encyclopedia doesn't aim to be funny, but it doesn't aim to be dry either. If something is ironic and humorous, that's just how it is. There is no point in "avoiding" humor, as long as it is informational and relevant, which I feel that would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.65.210 (talk • contribs)

It's only encyclopedic if it can be sourced, which it manifestly cannot. Powers ^T 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words if I ever saw them

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

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.208.35 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) The possible origin of the game can be found in the metro article ASH1977LAW (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC) the note you have just lost the game will not really be needed on the game page because if you know about the game you will have lost it by looking or simply thinking about this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.65.164 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambig?

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

Rules

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

rule 35 137.222.215.52 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rule 35 states that if there isn't pornography of the subject in existence, make it.—Preceding unsigned comment added byCompuHacker (talk • contribs)

I know what rule 35 is, what I meant is( [1] see definition 2), i.e. if it doesn't exist it will be made. Rambowjo: you're just not looking hard enough there's bound to be pics of somebody w/ you just lost the game written all over them, if not then rule 35 applies 137.222.215.52 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It exists, I've seen it. It consists of a JPG in thumbnail - when you view the full size version, you immediately notice that the girl has "YOU LOST THE GAME" written up one of her arms. It can't be seen in the thumbnail. Rissa (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's there, don't worry. also, could someone edit this page so that at the end of "the rules", it says "by the way, you just lost"?

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Except rule 34 of the game DOES exist, and I've seen it. The picture is sitting on my desktop at this very second, in fact. 68.103.160.254 (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to add to the rules because there is a way to win now btw i lost and the way to win is you have to personally call the queen of England and talk to her about the game and make her lose that is serious no lie or joke how you win the game and we should add that since it is in the rules if you don't believe me go onto 4chan and search for the game material and you will find it 10:06 PM, 18 may 2009 Fattyacid7 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ^Talk

Last time I checked, 4chan wasn't a reliable source. Fences and windows (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

yes that is true but its main origin is from 4chan users meaning that should be a source Fattyacid7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.63.111 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a lot of evidence The Game was around and perhaps even popular long before the existence of 4chan, and there is no evidence of 4chan significantly contributing to its origins or popularity. That it is a meme does not make it a 4chan original, any more than Longcat. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT Vandalism

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

I didn't get a chance to see it, but the idea behind the image doesn't sound too much like vandalism to me. I'm not sure what else could be used as an image for the article. --Maxa megalon 2000 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all articles require an image. In this case, the image was a piece of notebook paper with the "you lose" message scribbled on it, which is nothing more than a stealth way to introduce the "you lose" crap on the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything stealthy about it at all. "The 'you lose' crap," assuming I understand your use of the phrase, is a major component of the subject of the article. Even if your concerns about the quality of the image and manipulation of the article are true, I'm still not sure adding it is something that should have been immediately reverted without discussion, let alone vandalism. --Maxa megalon 2000 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added it for reasons like an example of what people normally do to make others lose, it even mentions something similar to a flier in the article. Plus, I didn't added it 'as a sneaky way to make people lose,' because honestly, when someone gets to the page of The Game, they've already lost, being on the page ABOUT the game. So, it's just a way of showing what it looks like. --ZacLOL (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I too can't see anything wrong with the image described really - this type of note is mentioned both in the article and in the sources, is it not? Whether or not the image is necessary probably merits a discussion here, but I can't see how this was vandalism under anyone's definition. I don't usually question stuff like this, but in this case I can't help but feel that assuming a little good faith and bringing up the discussion here would have been better. Wiw8 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easier to assume good faith when the contributor in question doesn't have a history of vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I notice the vandalism warning on his userpage, looking through ZacLOL's contribs I genuinely struggled to find the history of vandalism amidst the good faith contributions (including removal of other people's vandalism). I think I've pinned it down though, to the addition (in jest) of the word "fictional" to an article about a (heavily delayed) upcoming music album, which he later apologised for. While I wouldn't condone such an edit myself (light hearted vandalism is still vandalism), it seems rather over the top to deny this user any measure of assumption of good faith for the rest of time just because of this. I know that because of its popularity this game (mind game) article is often subject to nonsense vandalism, but the problem with marking good faith edits as vandalism too hastily (and not taking it back when it is shown not to be) is that it heavily discourages users from making further good faith attempts to improve the article. I'd be surprised if many users would dare to add a similar image now, even if it is in good faith. Wiw8 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what, is it cool to put the picture back up? I guess MAYBE it didn't really HAVE to be there, but it was just an example, all in good faith.--ZacLOL (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not see the picture, but if all it is are the words 'you lost the game' on a sheet of notebook paper that you found, it does not see all that valuable of an addition to the article because any caption would not be allowed as unverifiable original research. But thanks for your attempt to improve the look of the article - appropriate images are generally a good thing for articles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by- would "A flier created to cause people to lose The Game" really be original research? Unveriafiable in a sense- in the same way that all user-taken pictures on Wikipedia are. Wouldn't that caption be just like putting "A can of Spam" under a picture of a can of spam?--72.35.67.9 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For the win

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

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

In the particular version that myself and the people I know play, the only way to win The Game is to not remember The Game in the 29 minutes before you die. Obviously, this only applies if you follow the immunization rule discussed above. As far as I know, this is the only mutually agreed upon way of "winning" The Game. RobSpewack (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What if they have the game in the afterlife? Then you can never win... --Rosencrantz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we all lose the game by visiting this page? Dachshund2k3 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan on spending the rest of your life on this page? If not, you still have the chance to forget about it and stop losing.--Hawkian (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I always have heard that you can win by saying moo while not thinking of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardoodledom (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a source on this other than some guy who stayed on my couch for a couple weeks. I liked it though, and I've adopted it, so maybe in another 10 years it'll be pretty standard. The fourth rule I heard is: 4: The object of The Game is to get everyone on earth to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.81.213 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moo?? WTF is that?? No! There is no way of winning the game. You cannot win. Should be in the rules. The closest you can come is not losing for a while. People who don't know they're playing aren't winning, they just haven't started losing. If you die without ever having lost the game, you may not have lost but you're dead so you've lost a much bigger game, innit? Mooglemoogle (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is but one way to win the game, and it can only ever be done by one person. It is as follows: bt the sentient being on Earth, and not think about it for thirty minutes. Thecompendium (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way to win the game (or so I've heard) is to get every single person in the world, physically capable of it, to lose the game at once, and once that has been accomplished, everyone may say "I win" and the game is then history. Apparently there was something on b in April that allowed you to stop playing, but by now it's buried under millions of posts. Fjordn (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked /b/ on 4chan is not a reliable source. Fences and windows (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about winning the game, but I'm of the opinion that having a copy of the Magic card Platinum Angel on your person prevents you from losing it. 137.205.108.102 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability in relation to The Game

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

We don't make exceptions to Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources and verifiability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Out of curiosity, what constitutes an acceptable external link with regard to a meme?--Hawkian (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone could create and host an external wiki for the express purpose of documenting as much information as possible about the game. If you did that, I imagine that kind of resource would be a sensible thing to link to. Usually I'd think a publicly editable wiki with more lax standards than wikipedia would be considered an unreliable source, but in the case of the game, which is a meme that's being constantly created by those very people who could contribute to an entire wiki about it, it would seem to me that it would be the only thing that can truly be considered a reliable source. -Davi Rios —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.81.213 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good application of Ignore All Rules if I ever saw one. Let's face it, The Game is about as far from an ordinary situation as any article can get. Keep in mind that the goal of Wikipedia is to create a useful resource, not to abide by some arbitrary set of rules. Now, a lot of discussed additions probably aren't particularly useful, but as the article is currently formulated it almost makes The Game seem to be a fixed "game" in the ordinary sense of the word with widely agreed-upon rules, which is clearly entirely untrue. The fact that people don't want to cite random internet images or fora (not to mention 404s) does not make the information itself unencyclopedic, and I think the rapidly changing nature of the subject matter on this page clearly warrants lightening the source restrictions.

On the other end, OhNoitsJamie, your attitude has been entirely ridiculous. "We don't make exceptions to Wikipedia policies . . . " Well perhaps you don't, but the Wikipedia community in general sometimes does (at least leave the information with [citation needed] in, rather than remove it). " . . . we don't accept "common knowledge" without a source." While you are probably right that this isn't common knowledge, you need to lighten up. It takes about five seconds on Google to find everything discussed on this page and previously added to this article, so you can hardly deny the veracity of the claims. Remember further that original images in general do not qualify as original research (unless they or their captions actually present unpublished claims). I think rather than subjecting half a dozen editors to an overly strict interpretation of "rules" (properly called "policies and guidelines" for a reason), you should consider seeking a consensus, or at least use arguments beyond links to WP:Policy pages to make your points. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While some rules may and are bent, WP:Verifiability is not one of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can show that ignoring the rules in this instance will "improve the encyclopedia", you may gain consensus ---- but I doubt you will be able to. And right now, I am firmly supporting OhNoItsJamie. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, from the look of this article, you two were both vindicated and ignored.--188.155.183.194 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lesser known rule

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

That is not a "lesser-known rule," that is a variation on the original rules, and personally, one I consider to be bullhonkery of the most primeval order. One of the only saving graces of losing the game is the solace that you can find in making those around you lose too by announcing it!--Hawkian (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is, arguably, the whole point of announcing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.106.75 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for completing the game

What can be considered a reliable source for the completion of The Game rule? As there is no official governing body for The Game would one source even be needed?--ZincBelief (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge would apply here I think--ZincBelief (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't accept "common knowledge" without a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Time and Numbers

The reference for the number of players for The Game comes from one newspaper (or online newpaper) written in January 2008. In my opinion the content is of questionable reliability, but of course we look for verifiability and not truth. I tried to change "The Game is played" to "In January 2008, the Game was played". This has been called 'introducing point of view' or 'unsourced' and thus rejected. Another editor said it was 'wrong because multiple sources produce this number', they do not. Does anyone object to this more accurate approach? Is it not better to have wikipedia accurately reflect the number playing at a moment in time, rather than arguing the number is universal in time.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're doing this just to make a WP:POINT protesting your prior block. -Nard 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It's not the right place to give it though.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'Oops - you lose. Confused? It's actually a pretty simple idea, once you get the hang of it. But be warned, once you join hundreds of thousands of people around the world trying to outsmart and out-think each other, there's no going back.' This is the relevant piece of text by the way, from the article sourced.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And we're supposed to believe that "once you join hundreds of thousands of people" is anything other than a rough estimate? No reader is really going to take that claim out of context, especially given the nature of the topic. Zinc, you may think you're being clever here but it's pretty obvious to multiple others that you are disrupting to prove a WP:POINT. Mango juice^talk 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, another person tries to turn it into a personal issue. I don't understand what the context really has to do with it. All I am saying is that it is more accurate to say in January 2008 this was the playing population. This is after all what wikipedia is saying, except that wikipedia goes on to say more - it says whenever you read the article this is the number playing. Is it wrong to make this change? I am beginning to suspect there is a conspiracy going on here to allow even the smallest of changes to this article.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy, just a strict adherence to our WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources policies. Despite your earlier assertions to the contrary, what you may consider to be "common knowledge" doesn't cut it here. Mentioning that the subject is mentioned in a notable webcomic is fine; using that web comic to try to source anything else (rules, "winning") is not, just as it wouldn't be appropriate to use "Peanuts" as a source suggesting that dogs can form lasting friendships with birds. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ohnoitsjamie, you are not actually reading what I have written. Clearly you are telling me that you and several other users will not allow any changes to this page. I tried to change "The Game is played" to "In January 2008, the Game was played". I am denied on all fronts. I disproved every argument presented so far(note some of these appear on talk pages). It is not a multiple source claim. It is not in the wrong tense. It is not unsourced. It is not introducing point of view. I can't understand what mangojuice's comment is, but it seems just personal abuse to me. You are also engaging in personal abuse. Fine. If you all want to go that way that's great. As you say there's no conspiracy, just strict adherence to WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources policies. So when I use these to try to make a 4 word change it is of course correct that you should threaten to ban me. Well done.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I concede that I am not allowed to change this page. I will make no further comment here and will not edit the article. Thank you for your feedback.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, another editor turned off from Wikipedia by senseless and over-the-top threats and overly stringent application of policies. Way to assume good faith. It is good to know that you have improved Wikipedia by flaunting power over an editor attempting to change the tense of a single verb on a single article. Eebster the Great (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I'm really glad WP had the good sense to bring back The Game (game) article, after being deleted by mean editors like five or six times. --Clyde (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do was to find a second reliable source, and it wouldn't have been deleted by editors who follow Wikipedia policy. For a long time, there was only one source, a Dutch newspaper not available online. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's the way it goes. But now it's back, and having this page on my watchlist really makes me lost quite often. --Hawkian (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which, at the time, was enough - the wording of WPRS wasn't always such that multiple sources were required. Darquis (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A possible lead as to the source of The Game.

There's a very good possibility that The Game originated in Hendersonville N.C. with a young man by the name of Christian Ross aka. Narik. However, it seems to me there can be no reliable way to verify this information given the absolutely viral nature of The Game and human nature itself. The most I can do at the moment is to state that this young man mentioned to me his creation of this "Game" known simply as "The Game" approximately four years ago along with the three to four standard rules that are commonly accepted by all. Those rules being: 1. You are now part of The Game. 2. The object of The Game is to not think about the game. 3. If you think about The Game, you lose the game. 4. Your loss must be announced. I'm not sure if there are any cited instances of The Game as it's known today prior to this date, nor am I able to verify an exact date at this time. Any ideas as to how to go about verifying this person as The Game's creator are welcome seeing as I remain in constant contact with him. Again, any help in solving this conundrum to the satisfaction of Wiki would be appreciated as I would like to see him credited for this wonderfully malicious little piece of fun. Thank you in advance. --TheDudeOnTheCouch 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But there's also a possibility that the Game is older than four years. See the third reference and look for this comment:

"Vinny Skye

posted 7/03/08 @ 11:29 AM CST" 141.151.27.162 (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Annisina

If your source were to be interviewed about the Game and when he first played it and that interview published by a reliable source, then information regarding the Game that was in the published interview could be included. (but following WP:COI, neither you nor he should actually put the information from the interview in the article) -- The Red Pen of Doom

I've been playing the game for longer than four years, so he either came up with it independently or is taking credit for something he didn't do. Darquis (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest a reference for the history of the game? I posted it on my weblog in 2002. Current version of the page is at http://www.arseburgers.co.uk/blog/archives/000246.html although the original was on the original site of the weblog http://aardvarkdj.blogspot.com/ I don't want to add it myself because these are both my own sites and my understanding is that this is against the rules. Theaardvark (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

LoseTheGame.com

Shouldn't LoseTheGame.com be mentioned in the internet culture and external links sections? It is mentioned in all the Canadian Press sources such as this one as is the site's creator Jonty Haywood. Rabidfoxes (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion on this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That discussion seems to end with the reason that the link cannot exist because the site encourages Wikipedia vandalism. I can find no policy supporting this reasoning. Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a policy for common sense issues. Furthermore, the site was originally blacklisted due to spamming. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other people have brought this up before shows that it's not just a matter of common sense as to whether or not the link should be there. The only way this can be discussed is with reference to policy, of which I can find none supporting the removal of this link. Rabidfoxes (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on Banksy, a British graffiti artist famous for vandalism around the world, has a number of external links to sites encouraging vandalism. I understand that the content of one article by itself is not evidence supporting similar content on another article. However, this shows that if the link is relevant, it should exist, regardless of content encouraging vandalism. I'm sure many other such examples exist. Rabidfoxes (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply put: no, it should not. External links are only gingerly added in the first place, and only then when they are an extensive source that would be impractical or impossible to cite, or when it is the official website of the entity under discussion. Exceptions are sometimes made when a link is especially relevant or topical, but this site is none of the above. The fact that it advocates vandalism is just frosting on the cake. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the link has no place on Wikipedia, responses such as this...

We don't need a policy for common sense issues.

Hold NO weight. We have policies BECAUSE common sense isn't a set established principle. Don't present such pointless, flawed logic again. 60.230.201.144 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

I stand by my comment that it is common sense not to link to sites that encourage vandalism of Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems oddly self-referential to argue that external links can describe and encourage any form of illegal or malicious activity, unless that activity specifically targets content on the wikipedia.org domain.

This also suggests that someone could get any well-sourced external link removed under this unwritten "common sense" rule, by adding even a small amount of material to it that encouraged or enabled the vandalism of Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, you said no such thing. So do not attempt to stand by it.

I was commenting on, and once more you attempt to push it, that common sense is not a deciding policy. It holds no weight, especially as your common sense is equal to any other users common sense. Common sense is subjective. If you had said "because of [this], [this] and [this] and its threat because of [those]/[this] causing vandalism to this article, we should remove the link" it would be fine, but relying on "common sense" amounts to "because I think it shouldnt be". And seeing as you once more attempted to push common sense as your reasoning behind it being a bad link, it shows you do not understand the concept and why that type of logic is not for Wikipedia. Present a reason for why the link should be removed rather than claiming it should be "just because". I agree it should be removed, for the reasons stated by users not relying on such poor reasoning. But you should attempt to cease it. 60.230.201.144 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

I'm beginning to think that, as an Administrator, OhNoitsJamie uses his so-called "common sense" to override Wikipedia policy whenever policy stands in his way. Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

People like this are admins? Christ. We have a page for 4chan, and they blatantly vandalize Wikipedia and encourage it as per the Mudkipz debate. Do we delete the 4chan page because they "encourage vandalism of Wikipedia?" No, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a high school gossip center. StardustDragon 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but has anyone actually tried contacting the owner of the "lose the game" website and asking him if he'd be kind enough to remove the sections that encourage vandalism of Wikipedia? Wiw8 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As it only seems to be OhNoitsJamie's common sense saying that the site shouldn't be mentioned, and no policy has been referred to, I am going to mention the site in the internet culture section. Feel free to remove it if you can provide references to policy as to why it shouldn't be there. Rabidfoxes (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and Jamie has removed that because it's giving the URL of a blacklisted site, which is a much better reason than "common sense".

If the URL was blacklisted in the past because someone was spamming it, then we should get it off that blacklist before including it in the article. As it stands, I don't think the sources back it up strongly enough to merit removing it from the blacklist, but feel free to appeal the blacklisting yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on the blacklist because of spamming and because the site encourages vandalism of Wikpedia projects via a Firefox plugin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of what I meant with my question above. Apparently attempting to wipe all trace of reference to this site and its owners from Wikipedia hasn't proved an effective method of solving the problem (the site still encourages vandalism despite being blacklisted years ago); as a different approach, has anyone actually tried contacting the site owners and asking them to remove the vandalism encouragement? If not then I'd be happy to e-mail them about it myself using the address given on the site homepage, but I guess the request should really come from a Wikipedia administrator. Wiw8 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even without the vandalism encouragement (which I still don't see as being relevant, or against any policy), the site is still blacklisted for having been heavily spammed in the past. This is serious, and we'd need a very good reason to overturn it - I don't see that we have that reason, yet. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hiya, sorry I wasn't more clear. I didn't mean that we should try to get the vandalism encouragement removed so that the link can be included (I also think the vandalism encouragement is irrelevent in that respect). What I meant was that the site encouraging vandalism of Wikipedia is of itself a problem, and I was proposing a different approach to solving it since past attempts have apparently been unsuccessful, and I would hope that the primary objective of these measures is to solve the problem rather than to have a fight with the perpetrators.

But since you mentioned it, apparently the blacklisting was for the vandalism encouragement rather than heavy spamming (see here), added in October last year. I guess the purpose of the blacklisting was an attempt to make the encouraged vandalism less effective. But anyway, with regards to the site and this article, I think there are three separate questions:

From an article content point of view, should this website be mentioned by name in the article, should it be an external link in the article, or should it have no mention in the article at all?

Should the article's encouragement of vandalism prevent it from being named or linked to in the article?

Should the article being on the spam blacklist prevent it from being named or linked to in the article?

I think that as with all content-related issues, the first of these questions is a matter for discussion and consensus, not for any individual editor to decide.

The answer to the second question has already been discussed here and it appears that consensus was leaning towards "no".

The third, I suppose, comes down to whether there is a rule against mentioning blacklisted sites by name in articles (in situations that are clearly not spam). My personal view is that it does seem counter productive to limit article content out of principle just because the site's URL happens to be on the blacklist (this also suggests that anyone could get all well-sourced mentions of a popular site removed from articles across Wikipedia simply by spamming it so that it gets put on the blacklist) - it would be interesting to get others' views on this one. Wiw8 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This page ended up on my watchlist due to a WP:3O request a while back. I've been watching this discussion and just wanted to say that I believe that the decision of whether or not to include a link to this site does not rest with the editors actively working on this page. The blacklisting would need to be appealed and consensus for inclusion on any page would need to be determined by a wider audience to remove the lacklisting. Even then, I would argue against inclusion as simply being linkspam and provding no additional information that cannot already be included in the article without the link. External links must have specific reasons for inclusion and this site doesn't meet any of the requirements in WP:ELYES. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the attitudes here about linking to, or even mentioning, that site remind me distinctly of the infamous "BADSITES wars" about which I wrote an essay last year. There seem to be biases and emotions in play that go beyond calm, rational decisions about whether a link makes sense, and veer into arguments from authority (claiming that the decision does not rest with the editors of this page), arguments for treating the site harshly because it's out to vandalize Wikipedia (I looked at it and couldn't find any content that even mentioned Wikipedia, much less a "plug-in to vandalize Wikipedia" as is claimed is there; maybe such things existed in the past, but they don't seem to be there now), and general ramped-up rhetoric. The reliable sources cited in the article all seem to mention that site as the primary locus of the current Internet-meme manifestation of the game, so it would seem to make sense to link it even though it's technically not the "official site" (because nothing can be "official" regarding a nonproprietary, unowned thing like this). *Dan T.* (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

a request for the unblacklisting of losethegame.com is being discussed here for anyone interested. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K., the link has been whitelisted and nobody has responded to Dtobias's post here, but OhNoItsJamie has twice reverted the web site's addition as an external link. The site appears to be the primary nexus for The Game online, and at the very least gives good information for a common (the most common, in fact, and the one supported by all our other sources) variation of the game. None of the editors of this page have any connection to the site or its author, and have only added it because we think it adds substantial information to the article because it cannot be incorporated in any other way. None of the stated reasons for not adding the link (that it is blacklisted or promotes spamming Wikipedia) still apply. I see no reason not to include this now.

And please keep in mind that this is an external link, not a reference, and as such does not need to meet Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources or verifiability. Eebster the Great (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Restored. Mike R (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

the game

I have two qualms about this article... first off, how do you "win" at The Game? second off, this comes off as nothing more than Patent nonsense. How it's so popular with people is beyond me, but it does concern me. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it falls under the category of patent nonsense. The rules are understandable. Lots42 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be silly and pointless, but it's not nonsense. I think a lot of games seem kind of nonsensical when you think about it; this is just a particularly abstract game. But yeah, the rules are comprehensible, making it not patent nonsense. An example of patent nonsense would be something like "The Game is purple. The rules of the game are dishwasher." Wiw8 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the not-being-patent-nonsense part. how does one win at "The Game"? or is there only losing? :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Game playing groups will often amongst their members use the time between losing as a measure of 'winning'. Additionally, games do not need a "win" condition to be considered a game. Arguably a measure of performance is needed, however, and The Game clearly has that. LinaMishima (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, a game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment. Key components are goals, rules, challenge, and interactivity, and The Game has all these components. Neither win conditions nor lose conditions are really necessary for an activity to be considered a game. --Zarel (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Winning the game many have suggested that they way we can all win the game is if the Prime Minister of England, on national television, announces that he has lost the game. This can then point to the original origin of the game as being from England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.42.113 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar Games?

Should similar games be mentioned such as "Don't Think About Penguins". It has the same basic rules but you can guess the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.119.65 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It has, the "White Bear" thing was referenced, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.193.84 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability? I think not. Merge similar things into one article, possibly 64.149.38.140 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Game" in featured in Metro newspaper.

Online version here. It was featured on page 3 of the December 4 2008 edition of the paper. This means over 1 million of its readers have lost. 217.43.52.230 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a better online version of the Metro where you can actually see and browse the whole paper as it was printed. I'll see if I can remember the link. Wiw8 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. After it loads you can browse the whole paper with the forward/back buttons at the top. Wiw8 (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added as additional citation both for The Game's existance and the rules. ASH1977LAW (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Real source of the game

I think you will all find that the game was first seen publicly on 4chan and not all those other places everyone was talking aboot. the game then spread from 4 chan users to their frieends and their freinds and so on untill millions of people knew about the game. also when the brittish PM announces the end of the game on national TV the game simply starts over again . SPREAD THE WORD PEACE OUT :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.117.186 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be original research. Get me a trustworthy news source that says just that and it'll be considered. I'm not debating the actual information you're presenting; I'm just stating Wikipedia policy. Aaron ► 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, as there were numerous (sadly, lost at this time) references I used to have that claimed about 5 different origins of such a memetic virus/mind-game which predated 4ch. Gedrean (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed I remember playing the game at least a year or two before 4chan showed up (in 2003 iirc) 98.206.57.104 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First heard about it in 1999, so that's 4 years before 4chan. WP:OR to both of us but your just talking bawhooey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.13.127 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a well known folk tale in South India, current for centuries, that a herbal doctor prescribed a cure for a fat patient to lose weight; there are only two conditions: that the patient must taken medicine without fail everyday, otherwise he will die; and that the patient should not think about monkeys while taking medicine. Now, whenever the patient tried to take the medicine, he invariably thought of monkeys and so had to abandon it! And he was worried that he would die. In a few weeks, he became very thin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.140.43 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Popculture References

{{editsemiprotected}}The webcomic XKCD released its readers from The Game in issue 391. --ChiperSoft (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've added an image of a losing player of The Game, which I found on Wikipedia. This is not an attempt to be silly or annoy; I think it beautifully illustrates how The Game is played. Hopefully it will stay on the page for a while. Fences and windows (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed per WP:BLP. There is no reason to be using images of recognisable people when they bring nothing to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP has no such rule. Please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. It is an anonymous person in a public place, and therefore acceptable to use. Nothing under this nor under WP:BLP contradicts use, as it is not an invasion of privacy, defamatory or other possible issue. Furthermore, it does add to the page, as it is a perfect illustration of somebody playing "The Game". I cannot imagine a better illustration! p.s. I have removed an offending 'spam site' url from the description - I didn't know it was a spam site, I took all the description automatically from Flickr. Mea culpa. Fences and windows (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the WP:BLP noticeboard to gain consensus if you think you can persuade people who deal with BLP everyday that this is not a total abuse of a living person's image for the most dubious/questionable/downright ludicrous of reasons. It's a MIND GAME, by definition you cannot illustrate it, or educate people about it, through pictures. You might as well add the image to the article about signs for all the intellectual weight that argument carries. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. My reasoning is not downright ludicrous. It is a 'mind game', but it is played by personal interaction, not telepathy --> "Losses must be announced (a statement such as "I lost The Game" is often used)". Communication via writing is an example of how a player communicates their "loss" to others, so your argument about arbitrary signs misses the point entirely. Fences and windows (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. For the benefit of other editors, the image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I_lost_the_game.jpg (found on Flickr, not Wikipedia as I mistakenly noted above). Fences and windows (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it rather poorly illustrates someone playing "The Game". Yes, it illustrates a common tactic of forcing others to lose the game, but there are equally common online methods that could be screenshotted that don't display an identifiable person. Perhaps if it were a photograph of someone expressing anguish over losing The Game, but the indifferent look on her face doesn't really make me think it's an adequate picture. --Zarel (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Zarel. Are players typically upset or anguished when they lose The Game? I just find it funny when I lose. The issue of an identifiable person is not an issue, if you read the WikiCommons guide I linked to above. Another image might be better, but no such good free image is available. So why not use one that is ready to illustrate the article? Fences and windows (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Commons link has absolutely no relevance to assessing this image's use against the BLP policy of the English Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the admins watching this page persistently delete images placed here on the grounds that they are playing a game. However you are quite right, this picture adds to the article and is perfectly acceptable per wikipedia policy that you linked too. If MickNaMee disagrees he should seek consensus, not you. You are in the right and are being constructive too.--86.151.79.31 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo adds nothing to the article, and I agree that it's a subversive attempt to play a game. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but you should remember that just because you are an admin doesn't mean that you are right. I quote: Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic. Such an image in my opinion is a yes-yes on those two points. It would be nice to place an image from the 2 webcomics onto the page, but they may well be covered by license restrictions. You should be less paranoid about people trying to play the game on the article with every edit they make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons makes no mention of not allowing a picture of a living person. I think MickMacNee should expand on his logic there--ZincBelief (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Thank you ZincBelief. MickMacNee has not explained how use of this image contradicts WP:BLP. Asserting that it does is not constructive. And seeing how the whole article in essence acts as a way to make people lose the Game already, how is the image "subversive"? Please stop assuming bad faith - I know this article irritates the hell out of lots of people on Wikipedia, in the same way as Mudkips do, but my only aim in using the image was to illustrate the article and make it more visually attractive. Fences and windows (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that I disliked the presence of an identifiable person because of Wikipedia policy. I disagreed with the presence of the identifiable person because I feel she detracts from the image. Some people express feigned anger and anguish at losing The Game, some people laugh, etc, but I don't think an indifferent look captures the essence of the game.

I still think a screenshot of a forum post reading "YOU JUST LOST THE GAME" or something similar might be better. It is, after all, played as often online as offline. --Zarel (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it nobody would object to a screenshot as [1] original research, or [2] a demonic wilful and vandalous attempt to play the game by subterfuge, or [3] not illustrative? Are we happy enough to put in a simple picture to provide a nice illustration for this article?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I implore people to present real reasons why an image should not be presented with the article rather than just removing an image. We have had one objection on wp:BLP where a quick read of the page proved that the objector hadn't read the page. Subversive attempt to play the game? That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The image would be sitting there permanently in an article already containing many instances of the phrase "lost the game".--ZincBelief (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, fine, I no longer object, but we should still do something about the current description of the image:

"A young woman loses The Game, and chooses a cardboard sign to follow rule requiring that the loss be announced."

Maybe something more like:

"A young woman announces her loss on a cardboard sign in an attempt to cause others to lose The Game."

? --Zarel (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the caption is poor as it stands. Simply "A player announcing their loss" would do for me.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

XKCD picture - can we use it?

I quote from the webcomic : This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details. http://xkcd.com/391/ To my mind that looks like yes, we are not selling it here are we? I certainly hadn't noticed if we were. --ZincBelief (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy. We're not selling our content, but we must ensure as much as possible that someone else could. --Maxa megalon 2000 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That being said, you may want to ask Randall if he'd be willing to relicense it. I know he did so with File:Xkcd_philosophy.png and File:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png, but it seems like those are different situations. --Maxa megalon 2000 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say that this is a rather depressing development! So wikipedia plans to sell it's content? Who is going to pay the contributers? Oh well, I certainly think we can find some image to illustrate the article. There are a lot of nice humourous images around the internet if you look only slightly hard to find them. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, I'll reproduce what Maxamegalon wrote again:

"We're not selling our content, but we must ensure as much as possible that someone else could."

That's what Wikipedia is about: Freedom. Wikipedia doesn't plan on selling its content, but we want to give others the freedom to do so, if they wish. --Zarel (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a limp argument. What about the freedom of those who don't want to do so?

Freedom doesn't mean placing a restriction like this onto our work. Still wrong place to discuss this.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You sound like you're arguing with yourself. "Non-commercial" is the restriction we're trying to lift. People who don't want to do what? People who don't want to sell Wikipedia content simply won't do it. I don't see much of a problem there. --Zarel (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides this whole debate is moot. We cannot use CC content that is under a "non-com" license, unless we can justify fair use. And it would be difficult to justify using a XKCD comic outside of XKCD itself as fair use.--Cerejota (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on addition of image to this article

RfC: Is the addition of an image desirable

Is it acceptable to include an image in the article of somebody playing the game? One suggested image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I_lost_the_game.jpg

The editor making this request has already been blocked once for "playing the game" on Wikipedia. (This article is a vandalism magnet for such attempts). The image adds nothing of value to the article, and is tantamount to attempting to "play" the game. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That was of course an invalid block by yourself as I only once explained the rules of a variant and tried to undo your censorship around that edit. Explaining the rules of a variant is not the same as playing a game by any means. Although you repeatedly failed to understand that along with the other admins involved, and deliberately violated the rule about not blocking a user with whom you are involved in a content dispute. Placing the article on a page which already contains numerous references to The Game is not a subversive attempt to play the game. The image is designed to remain there permanently, not to be added and re-added. This is not an attempt to play the game. It cannot be construed by any rational editor as an attempt to play the game. I put it OhNoitsjamie that he has spent so long reverting this page for vandalism that he now perceives every modification as subversive vandalism instead of taking them in good faith. I think the image proposed is a nice illustration of somebody announcing a loss, although it is perhaps a little obviously staged. That is the reason both myself and other users have advocating. I think it is plain rude to assume bad faith not just on my part (not even the original proposer) but on everyone elses part as well. It is for the reason of adding a simple illustration to the page as a means of improvement that I support other editors in their attempts to add this image to the page. That is the only reason. I would add lastly that I do not play the game myself, as it is a juvenile act that is no interest to anyone out of their teens. My gaming activities are those of a more serious nature as you will note from my contributions list.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ZincBelief, thanks for asking for comment. There is an unfortunate lack of assuming good faith on this talk page. I'm not a vandal. I originally sourced and uploaded this image, in the genuine belief that the addition of an appropriate image improves the article (I believe that all WP articles should have images). It cannot be a subversive attempt to play the Game, as the whole article does this already! Previous objections citing WP:BLP have been raised, but these objections are apparently without grounds as no editor has pointed out how use of this image breaches the BLP guidelines (which it does not). The image is not a joke; it is the best available to illustrate this article, and I find the strength of the objections to be perplexing. I'd ask editors who are aiming to protect this page to take a step back and consider why they are so opposed to the use of this harmless image. Fences and windows (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'd ask editors who are aiming to protect this page to take a step back and consider why they are so opposed to the use of this harmless image." Maybe if you had demonstrated that this person had the first idea that you have uploaded her image to Wikipedia, then we can all sit back and contemplate the harmlessness of your actions and the unreasonable actions of those who rightly see it not only as a useless image, but a definite and obvious breach of BLP. If you take a picture of yourself in the same pose, and certify to the Wikimedia Foundation that it is infact you and you release the rights to your image, and certify that you were indeed playing the Game at the time, then we can sit back and discuss the 'educational value' of it at ouir leisure. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the validity of ZincBelief's block; the unblock request was not granted and another (uninvolved) admin reblocked for longer. So much for this pledge. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't contest that you blocked invalidly I note. The admin that blocked me for longer also accepted your block was invalid, not just from a procedural point of view, but also from the point of view of the reason being wrong. So therefore I am entirely correct when saying I have been blocked incorrectly for playing the game. Neither injustice has any bearing on this request for comment I think. At no point have I ever or will I ever edit The Game to play The Game. I am not interested in playing such a juvenile pastime. You continually mud sling instead of actually addressing the point. For instance when I tried to enter the date relating to a reference, per wikipedia standards, you and another admin engaged in meatpuppeting to revert my changes without being blocked for the 3 revert rule. You just kept bleating like a sheep that I should not use the page for playing the game instead of actually addressing that what I was doing was encouraged as best practice on wikipedia. That is why I said fine, if you and other admins with an agenda to delete the page are going to be irrational like this then I am not going to edit it anymore. None of that has anything to do with the Request for comment. The WP:BLP point is clearly nonesense, probably caused by the poor layout of the page (Acceptable situations blends into Non Acceptable situations without careful reading). I will say again to you and would ask you to accept that adding an image once to a page cannot and should not be considered in context as a subversive attempt to play the game. That is a very bad faith and incivil comment from yourself not just to myself but to other editors. As an admin you should not behave like this. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned at OhNoitsJamie's approach to this discussion. Rather than focussing on the merits or demerits of this image in relation to the article, you are using ad hominem against ZincBelief. You're sailing close to the wind on WP:CIVIL. We all need to stay WP:CALM. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about Ohnoitsjamie's interpretation of any edit on this article as 'playing the game'. As Fences and windows points out, anybody coming to this page is by definition going to lose the game; any further images/content etc. aren't going to change that situation. What's the real issue here? Spudtater (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, I reckon the image is perfectly suitable for this article, and would like to restore it.) Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question: "Is the addition of an image desirable?" the answer is "yes, if it adds to a reader's understanding of the article topic." Does the suggested image add to the understanding of the article? Nope. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided." WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Can someone please point me to these apparently mythical criteria that demand that images are "educational" and "add to understanding"? There's nothing at WP:IUP nor at WP:MOS#Images. This has WP:CREEP written all over it, and these objections look like WP:JDLI. Also note: "We want more images" WP:10I. Fences and windows (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"yes, if it adds to a reader's understanding of the article topic." is not insruction creep, it is the question that should be asked of ALL material additions to an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_South_Vietnamese_coup_attempt, a featured article containing 4 images. Does any image in this article add to the reader's understanding of the article topic? I think they all add the same amount of understanding as the image (or type of image) we propose to add here would. This is pretty much a weasel words criteria, it is unmeasureable and subjective. Fences and windows is correct that we want to add more images to wikipedia articles in general, and this image is certainly as good as thousands of other images that have been added to articles in wikipedia. The original reason it was removed was for breach of WP:BLP, which was an incorrect removal because no such breach existed.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom, WP:IINFO states that info should not be indiscriminately added to an article. This image is not indiscriminate. Again, a WP "rule" is being cited when it doesn't apply. Please leave the image up unless you can come up with a good reason to remove it, and it is first discussed here. Otherwise, it is those who remove the image who will be edit-warring. Fences and windows (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

the image does add to the understanding of the article. it shows someone using a strategy to make other players lose the game as described in the sources. this game is rather confusing for people to understand and i think this image would help a lot. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? As Jessi states, the image shows a common strategy to cause others to lose The Game. --Zarel (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It "shows someone using a strategy" - prove that is what they are doing, instead of just holding a sign that some idiot with a camera just gave the girl to pose with. She may have no clue what the Game is at all, you can't prove anything from this frankly useless image, any assertion that it is educational/informative is just frankly nonsense. Pure intellectual garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a higher standard of proof than necessary. The point is that the image is informative, and to prove that, all I need to prove is that the image depicts what someone using strategy would do, not necessary that the person is actually using strategy, which is an impossible proof.

To prove that the image depicts what someone using strategy would do is simple:

1. People playing The Game often write "I lost", "You just lost the game", "the game", or a variation thereof on signs or public places, to get others to lose.

2. That's what the girl in the image is doing.

QED. I don't know anything about WP:BLP so I can't comment on that issue, but the assertion that the image adds nothing to the article is false. --Zarel (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AS I said already, the claim of it being in any way informative is about as convincing as saying the image would be a good addition to the article on signs. It's ridiculous to even suggest that anybody can learn anything from this image that they cannot already imagine in their own mind when the article states, 'people often write I lost the Game'. The fact that people cannot even make up their minds whether this girl is announcing her loss, or is doing a strategy, let alone has a clue what the Game is at all, just shows how stupid the whole idea is of this image being something informative or educational. It is 'nice', that is about as high-brow as this debate gets, we don't add images of identifiable people unrelated to the article simply because they are 'nice'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mick, stay civil. No need for "idiot", "garbage", "nonsense", "stupid". Your argument about relevance does not make any sense. The image is relevant as it depicts someone playing The Game; your point about adding it to an article about signs is not logical, and suggesting that we should just add random people if this image is OK is equally illogical. Images need to be relevant, we all recognise this. Would you be arguing all this if the page were about tiddlywinks, and there was someone playing that game? (I couldn't find any free images taken in a public place to add...). Look, Tennis, Chess, Baseball, Cricket, Pétanque all have identifiable pictures of living people; why not edit those pages by removing the images and insisting on consent, and be sure to tell the editors they only want the pictures because they're "nice". After all, we all know how chess is played without needing to see someone sat at a board. Fences and windows (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Having consulted at the noticeboard I am satisfied that MickMacNee's objection is without any solid foundation. There is no chance of defamation or libel resulting from the responsible propused use of this image.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've added the image back in, with the description "As discussed incorrectly removed per WP:BLP." The image was correctly removed because there was no consensus on the talk page. You can argue all you want about whether or not the objections were correct, but it's misleading to criticize the removal itself, which was perfectly justified. --Zarel (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that, the edit summary read something like "removed per WP:BLP" - we have established that there is no reason on WP:BLP to remove the image. Other objections appeared when this was pointed out. --ZincBelief (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Didn't look back far enough. --Zarel (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I still think this was a simple misread on MickMacNee's part, but he doesn't discuss with us. The edit summary was for point of reference... 19:10, 6 March 2009 MickMacNee (talk | contribs) (4,923 bytes) (→Rules: rm image of identifiable person per WP:BLP) (undo) --ZincBelief (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To refute ZincBelief, the image does violate BLP. Linking to Commons policies about what they accept is wholly irrelevant to Wikipedia. On here thankfully there are more people with experience in applying the appropriate rules to the right situations, and this is a situation where you need to judge whether you are innappropriately using a living person's image. I will repeat as it seems to have been ignored, if users want to assert that this image of an identifiable person who nobody can prove has given their permission to be used in an article wholly unrelated to themselves, is not a BLP and IMAGE violation, then they can seek approval on the BLP noticeboard and then demonstrate it here, which will be more acceptable than the previous attempts at justification. MickMacNee (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to which provision of WP:BLP the image violates? It's a pretty big policy, and the words "photo" and "picture" aren't mentioned, and "image" is only mentioned in the sense that the rest of the policy applies to images, too. --Zarel (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"the rest of the policy applies to images" - that is the whole point. If you need help in understanding the policy or the principle behind it, do as I have suggested and seek advice from those who deal with it regularly, at the BLP noticeboard. Ask them if it is acceptable to use identifiable images of people in articles that are not about that person, and when the image content does not add to the article, and is included for no other reason than prettifying the article (which is not what the image policy means by all articles benefit from images). MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, just asserting that it breaches WP:BLP is obstructive. I realise the whole policy applies to images, but what exactly in the policy is it that rules this out? Further, how does WP:BLP even apply, when this is not a BLP? You state that there is a policy that identifiable people need to give permission for their image to be used in a page not directly connected to themselves - this sounds like your own invention. You don't have a consensus to remove it; you are the only one arguing using WP:BLP. p.s. There's no need to patronise me for pointing to the WikiCommons policy, it is useful as it gives details on the legal and moral position of image use. Don't bite the (relative) newcomer. Fences and windows (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can be so confident to claim this is an invention of mine and not based on real experience, when you seem to admit being a novice, and don't seem to have even the most basic grasp of the policy you are disputing (for example, taking the title of WP:BLP to literally mean it only applies to biographies for example). As for not having consensus to remove it, BLP is even clearer, as a BLP issue, the onus is on you to demonstrate clearly that this is not a BLP breach, and if necessary, you are the one who should be seeking clarification, not demanding it from others who have already adequately provided it, and pointed you in the direction where you can go for more advice. And ignoring that, simply per WP:BRD, as you were the one being bold and now objecting to its removal, the image stays out until you can show that consensus, and convice others who rightly doubt its use or relevance to the article at all anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a complete noob, I'm just not a seasoned Wikilawyer. I can be fairly sure that there is no policy "that identifiable people need to give permission for their image to be used in a page not directly connected to themselves" because I've searched for such a policy in vain, and I do know how to search webpages... Point me to it if it exists. WP:BLP applies to "biographical material about a living person"; is an image "biographical material"? Anyway, WP:BLP says to respect a right to privacy, but this doesn't breach that as it is not offensive, defamatory or in any other way harmful to the pictured individual, and the image was taken in a public place, so they had no expectation of privacy, as I've said before. I've asked before, and I'll ask again, how precisely does this breach WP:BLP? You've never explained. Point taken as per WP:BRD, but I have wanted to avoid having to call in the Mediation Cabal or other steps as I thought that we would be able to resolve this. As you're unmovable, I'll do that next. Fences and windows (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could MickMacNee actually quote the words of WP:BLP that he is referring to here. At no point can I see anything relating to the possible use of this image within this article. You have done nothing except bleat about WP:BLP and claim you are an expert while steadfastly ignoring all requests made for an explanation of your viewpoint. That makes your argument totally unconvincing, and I for one suspect you have none.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add this: If you are going to obsess about BLP, then why don't you just ask her? The original Flickr page is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/27261720@N00/2715186206 a cursory glance through scragz's other pictures would lead one to believe that this woman is scragz or that she is somehow related to scragz. Just send them a message asking about posting the image on this page, with proper links to this discussion, her picture on wikipedia, and the page on wikipedia. I am fairly certain that this would set a quick end to this entire debate... yes? ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」「Dochira samaka?」)} 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I took another look at his gallery, it says he is male, however, he does have a lot of pictures of that woman. I'm sure he could still contact her if you asked. Also, I noticed this in his Flickr profile: "Usage of my photographs: Everything I upload is under the Creative Commons Attribution License. I want you to use it for anything, commercial or non, derivative or not; anything. Just attribute to Jason Scragz" If that's worth anything. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」「Dochira samaka?」)} 09:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a fairly positive endorsement for the images use to me--ZincBelief (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One would think so, but I fear MickMacNee and whoever else is still going to call BLP on us, the argument being, of course "scragz may give permission, but the woman in the photo has not." Not trying to point fingers, but with the way everyone's been acting, it seems like this is the next step in the opposition's argument. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」「Dochira samaka?」)} 10:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a contentious statement about a non identified person myself. Out of fatigue I opened a query on WP:BLP noticeboard. However note that this RFC is not solely about this image - it is about any image.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the creator's requirement "Just attribute to Jason Scragz" actually comply with our policies? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The image is released under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. You are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and to make derivative works, under the following condition: Attribution (You must give the original author credit). This license is made clear on the image page, and the author is fully credited, also with a link to the original Flickr page. Fences and windows (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The general points:

The photo is a needless and unwarranted invasion of privacy whose inclusion is being pushed for the most specious of reasons (i.e. it's pretty, nice to look at, 'educational'), and that is a clear breach of BLP, this is clear if you ever put yourself in the position of the person involved rather than faceless editors, or have actually editted BLPs for any length of time. It absolutely doesn't metter if it is in a public place or doesn't call her fat, that misses the point entirely.
The photo source is unreliabe and unconfirmed. Upload a certified picture of yourselves if you are so insistent this sort of image adds anything to the article and it absolutely needs the irrevocable release of an identifiable persons image. Or alternatively as mentioned above, do the decent thing and actually ask her for permission (granted, that takes figuring out that she is not a male Flickr user, if indeed the profile is correct). The cast iron way to do this would be for her to email permission to the Foundation, and post that email address on the flickr image in the name of the Flickr account holder.
The photo is useless and breaches IMAGE, as it is wholly irrelevant to the article, nobody has a clue whether the woman is playing the Game. People are even giving conflicting opinions as to what the image actually is, and are even making up their own commentary. See original research for why making stuff up is considered a bad thing.
Comparison with tennis players, who cannot reasonably expect privacy in public places, is just absolute nonsense
Stating that you will have to go and remove a whole bunch of images from a bunch of articles if you do not get your way in this article, is a blockable behaviour.

MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The photographer approved use of the photo, but did the person in the photo? We can't assume it's OK withot proof that that person approves it, and I'm not even sure how that could be proven as it's not a famous person with a publicist we can verify and ask. No reason for the image on top of that. Just has to go. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo was taken in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. The subject matter of the photo is not a private one. It is not a subject that could cause harm or offence. It is not a contentious photograph or contentious material. This is simply not potentially defamatory material. I think you two have simply failed to understand the reason WP:BLP was introduced, I am just so amused it is being dragged into this discussion. What is the worse case scenario here? A $50,000,000 dollar lawsuit?--ZincBelief (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no issue here of personality rights or model release since the photo was taken in public. Whether we want to include the image is a separate issue. I don't see why we wouldn't include a free image that illustrates the subject of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to me as if the majority believe this is totally not a WP:BLP issue - and the majority feel this is a perfectly acceptable illustration of Rule 3 of the game (which is obviously an integral part of the article).--ZincBelief (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:BLP noticeboard now says absolutely no issue here!--ZincBelief (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. Mick, please read the page on civility again: incivility includes Rudeness; Insults and name-calling; Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel.

To reply to Mick's hyperbole that "Stating that you will have to go and remove a whole bunch of images from a bunch of articles if you do not get your way in this article, is a blockable behaviour": I never said I would do it. I was suggesting that doing so would be consistent with your argument, so show how flawed it is (reductio ad adsurdum). You are once again assuming bad faith.
Your argument about OR is specious; yes, let's avoid it in the captions (e.g. nothing about "Rule 3, employing strategies etc.), but saying that this shows someone playing The Game is not at all OR.
Arguing that this breaches WP:IMAGE is wrong. The image is 1. relevant, 2. significantly related to the article's topic, 3. Attributed.
Let it drop, Mick, please. You seem desperate to find policies to reject this, and I just can't see how this image warrants such opposition. Fences and windows (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have it from the author of the photograph himself now that the girl was playing the game. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From a purely intellectual standpoint, that is a ridiculous assertion to make. Unless of course this guy has made some extremely big advances in neuroscience. Anyway, I'm out, it's on your heads if it turns out this guy is lying, and this girl has absolutely no idea that random people see no issue with plastering her image on Wikipedia for no good reason. And the very idea that the image illustrates anything is frankly daft, you have to ask yourselves why you actually need an image of this at all, are you all honestly that limited that this is of actual benefit to you in understanding the pure nonsense that this article is? You cannot visualise this in your heads? Because I am sure nobody would be so shallow as to simply want this image because it is of an attractive girl. I am quite sure your opinions would be different if this was a member of your families. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah. Assume bad faith much? All of these points that might possibly have substance have been addressed already at BLPN. Your comment about family members is simply an assumption of bad faith and in any event false. If we had a picture of a friend or family member that was identical I would have no problem with the picture being put up here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ. "From a purely intellectual standpoint, that is a ridiculous assertion to make. Unless of course this guy has made some extremely big advances in neuroscience." I actually laughed out loud when I read this! MickMacNee, you are arguing from an extreme solipsist position. If that is the case, then Wikipedia needs to remove all statements that anyone believes anything (reductio ad absurdum). I must remind you to be civil, avoiding such terms as "pure nonsense", "shallow" and "frankly daft". Consensus is fortunately against you on the BLP discussion. You have no remaining objections other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As a strict adherent to Wikipedia policy, please read WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are acting as if I have anything to lose by actualy standing up for the sensible and ethical application of BLP and for opposing the use of totally unneeded imagery at the expense of another person. The only person who has anything to lose here is the subject of the image. I don't. You quite obviously think you don't. Your use of the word 'fortunately' in this situation is really bizarre, as if keeping the image is actually some high point for encyclopoedic and educational achievement. If you honestly think it is, and are not just arguing for the sake of it to 'win', I am frankly glad that our opinions on all things policy and encyclopoedic fact are so different. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am standing up to your bureaucratic blocking of reasonable edits to Wikipedia. Your opinion on WP:BLP is not in accordance with that of other editors. I firmly believe in the rights of people to privacy, and if I thought for a moment this image could infringe that I would never have posted it. This isn't the most important dispute on Wikipedia by a long way, but I see no reason cave in to you misapplying policy and being uncivil. Fences and windows (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that somebody who is informed they are quite wrong time and time again in their intepretation of WP:BLP cannot accept their mistake and move on. This is just the latest in a long line of quite unreasonable blockades raised against perfectly good edits/improvements to the article in question. Having discussed the issue more than fully there appears to be full consensus to place the image in the article.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So the WP:BLP has been established as without any basis, the subversive allegation about playing the game has been dropped as without merit. We now have only MrRedPen objecting on the grounds that its value to article not supported. I think MrRedPen may be the only such objector? The image clearly illustrates one rule of the game. Many other game articles have images illustrating one of the rules. The image is pertinent to the topic and according to the author genuine. It is surely significant to the article. MrRedPen's objections do not noticeably fall under the What Wikipedia is not page that he linked to with a subsection with headings of FAQs, Plot Summaries, Lyrics Databases, Statistics and News Reports. (Note for clarity's sake that this image is not under any of these 5 categories). I think this line from a more relevant policy (The one about images) is clearly supportive of inclusion Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. As I have already stated and as MrRedPen has either missed, ignored, or not fully considered, it is obvious that this Image is relevant to the article and the article's topic given that it illustates 1 of the 3 rules of The Game. One editor has already commented that they found the inclusion of the image helpful as they were not sure how to carry out rule 3.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone doesn't know how someone would write "I lost the Game" and thus this image is needed? The level of this discussion has reached new depths. The image is clearly not needed, it is not informative or educational. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an ounce of good faith in you, do you? Wikipedia Games articles have thousands of such images in them already, why is there such an inane fuss over this one? It satisfies the all the criteria it needs to satisfy. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the consensus is that while not everybody likes the image or finds it useful, nobody can see any reason why it should not be in the article. I have restored it. (Justification: Don't Revert due to 'No Consensus') Spudtater (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spudtater, the consensus does show that the Image complies with the policies it has to.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have an unusual analysis of what constitutes consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Red Pen, do you have any actual objections other than IDONTLIKEIT? MickMacNee, you are looking like the boy who cried wolf in your relentless pursuit of Wikipedia policies to throw at this: BLP, OR, IMAGE; are we supposed to take your continued objections seriously? Fences and windows (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you expect me to take any supporting argument made here seriously? I'm sure given the bell curve that there actually are people out there who cannot visualise what writing "I lost the Game" looks like without a pretty picture. And I guess there will always be people ready and willing to assert that arguing for it is somehow a correct interpretation of the image usefullness and relevance policy, and is a perfectly ethical use of identifiable imagery on a high profile web page. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My objection is not "idontlike" it is WP:IINFO it is an random photo of someone with a sign and Per Spudtater [2] we have no proof of what game this image relates to, insertion in this article is violation of WP:OR-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, your claim of WP:OR is incorrect. It is not a "random photo of someone with a sign", so WP:IINFO also does not apply. This is not indiscriminate. The image clearly refers to "The Game" as referred to in this article: as if we needed confirmation, the uploader of the photo confirmed this to ZincBelief, and also that the girl knew she was playing the Game, and further the Flickr image page links to a website about "The Game". It is obvious that she is playing The Game; I didn't need to do any OR to know this. I suppose along the same line of reasoning you'll object to pictures of people playing chess, as they might not know the rules and could just be pushing the pretty pieces around the board. I think that the actions of editors on this page to use a series of bureaucratic objections goes against WP:Reasonability. Fences and windows (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the other thread on this, I don't see an issue with the image. The file on commons shows that it's sourced from Flickr; where the text below the image references the game with a link clarifying which game. This is not original research, it's verifying the statement against the source which makes the same statement (no analysis needed).

The image is relevant to illustrating the "strategies" section, so showing someone holding the sign helps to illustrate a point made within the article.

I do think it should be cropped. The focus should be on the subject of the sign, the person's face isn't really directly relevant here, so could be at least partially cropped off with no loss of meaning to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Crop it to only show the sign? Can this debate get any more hilarious? MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other; but I do think it should be cropped per WP:IUP#Rules of thumb #4: "Crop the image to highlight the relevant subject" - the subject in this case is the sign - the face of who is holding it is irrelevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The image caption reads 'a player announces her loss', which suggests that the subject is the player in question. In any case, this argument is getting a little beaurocratic. This is only a rule of thumb, after all. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit - now the caption is about the sign. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't make edits just to make a point. I've reverted to the original caption. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I admitted the WP:POINTy nature of my caption image. Will you admit the unsubstiated ground you are standing on with your argument that we cant crop the picture because of the current wording of the caption? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said below, the subject of the image is a person playing the Game, so cropping to remove them makes no sense. You acknowledge that you are editing Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Imagine if a new user came in and starting acting like you are: you'd have them blocked like a shot. Fences and windows (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People have offered to crop the photo so the subject is the sign. Digitization makes alternate possibilities easy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I believe that I was the one who triggered the cropped discussion, I want to clarify my reasoning for making the suggestion to crop it per the rules of thumb in Wikipedia's image use policy. But first: keep in mind that while I support cropping it - I don't care one way or another strongly enough to argue any further on it. If others want to argue for cropping it, they have my support - but I don't currently have any plans to argue for it any further than this clarification.

I mentioned above that I believe that the image is relevant to the article in that it illustrates the "strategies" section ie: all others who read the sign also lose the game. With the image most directly related to illustrating that section of the article, only the sign is trully relevant. The current caption on it tries to incorporate the woman into somehow being relevant - but in truth, it's secondary and not directly related. Cropping off the top portion, starting the image at her chin or neck and keeping everything below that takes nothing away from how the image relates to the article, and better focuses the image on the true relevant subject of the image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment simply refutes the argument that there was any Wikipedia policy stating that the image should be cropped. Instead, it is purely up to us as editors to decide whether the cropped or uncropped image better illustrates the article. Myself, I say leave it as is — partially because it emphasises the social nature of the game, but mostly because I think a headless person holding a sign would look rather odd. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you won't want to crop that image. From a highly theoretical point of view, there may be some debate over whether the primary subject is the sign or the player holding it, but it simply doesn't matter; the picture looks best the way it is. Eebster the Great (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

With regards to claims about WP:OR: does this really matter? Yes, there is a vanishingly small chance that the sign refers to some other game — we are not privy to this woman's thoughts and must reach our own conclusions. What is certain is that the image fits well with 'The Game' that we are talking about. Let common sense prevail and let the caption stand, please. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

With, according to the article, "millions" playing The Game worldwide, it is a vanishingly small number compared to the Billions and Billions of people who play and loose other games. According to Fences and Window, Zincbelief has an email from the photographer that claims the woman is playing The Game, but that is hardly within our standards of WP:V, and without a source, it is WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the image - although I think it should be cropped (focus on the subject of the sign, the person's face isn't really directly relevant here). The file on commons shows that it's sourced from Flickr; where the text below the image references the game with a link clarifying which game. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, your argument that "only millions" play The Game is irrelevant to this discussion, and it betrays the fact that your motivation here is a dislike of the page in general. Your argument on OR is simply wrong - it is obvious that the image refers to this game, and no research is required for reasonable editors to be satisfied of this: ZincBelief only sought confirmation because you and MickMacNee raised unreasonable doubts. Fences and windows (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My statement that "only millions" play The Game compared to billions and billions that play other games is certainly a relevant arguement to contest Spudtater's claim that the sign "obviously" relates to The Game. If only one in a billion players of other games carried a sign indicating that they lost it would still vastly outnumber the total players of The Game. And Please do not make assumptions about my view of the article in general because you are incredibly wrong. Comment on the content not contributor please.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologise that I misread you and your motivation. I wasn't aiming to make a personal attack; understanding the motivation of an editor is not always ad hominem.

I don't think there is potential confusion with any other game; what other specific game is referred to with a capitalised "G", and has as a part of it that players say or write "I lost The Game"? This WP:OR angle is not reasonable nor fruitful. Fences and windows (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

capitalization in the sign is utterly arbitrary. Lower case "i" to begin a sentance and refer to "I" and upper case "L" on "Lost" in the midddle of the sentance and every letter of GAME capitalized. And see The Game-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know about those other "Games", thanks. OK, capitalisation isn't a clincher. I've realised something, which is that to anyone unfamiliar with a game, or anything else for that matter, it is nigh on impossible for a depiction of that game or thing to be 'obvious'. To someone from England who is unfamiliar with Australian Rules Football, a picture of this sport will look like rubgy. To someone unfamiliar with the Viking game, a picture of this boardgame might resemble chess. Someone from China might mistake Othello for Go. A risk of confusion to the uninitiated shouldn't be an argument for not including an image, nor is it evidence of original research. Fences and windows (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In general we are slightly more lenient about what level of original research we allow for photographs that illustrate article subjects. Thus for example we let people take photographs of locations and of famous people, upload them and label them as such in the articles even if that is at some level non-verifiable original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think certain editors should realise that they can be blocked for disruptive editing. Citations are needed for statements are not needed for non contravertial material - such as this photograph. I have a private email reassuring me that this girl is playing the game. In any other page we would accept this with good faith and move on. I hope we will do so here. If not I am going to make a complaint. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If an editor receives a private e-mail ti is all well and good that the e-mail convinces them, but such an e-mail doesnt count as a reliable source for the project itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to let it drop then? You're going to continue to make ridiculous assertions about the basis of this image purely to be disruptive? --ZincBelief (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So I've just read through the discussion surrounding this image, and let me get this straight. The outstanding complaint is that we don't have verifiable proof that the person in the image was genuinely losing The Game described in this article at the time the picture was taken? To this all I can say is, as Spudtater said above, does it really matter? The whole point of the image is as an illustration of something. If I were to take an identical photo of myself, and upload it to be used instead with my personal declaration that I was indeed losing the game at the time of writing, that would solve the problem. And the difference this would make to the article other than my face being in the image instead is precisely nothing - all it would have accomplished is a waste of everyone's time. So how about we drop this and focus our energy on stuff that actually improves the encyclopedia? If this precedent were to catch on then we'd end up, for example, having to go through every picture of a famous monument and obtain irrefutable evidence for each that the picture is genuinely that of the monument in question and not, say, a picture of a very detailed scale model. Or how about the Apple article for example. Should that top image really be changed to say "a drawing of various components of the apple tree"? What about the next caption, which says "Wild Malus sieversii apple in Kazakhstan" - how do we know that apple is a real apple and not a very realistic ornament? Have we proof that it is wild, not from an orchard, and was it really in Kazakhstan when that picture was taken? Or further down there is an image of "Different kinds of apple cultivars in a supermarket" - do we have proof that those fruit shelves are actually in a supermarket? How do we know it isn't a hypermarket? Or, god forbid, perhaps it's really a large independent greengrocer's shop? The point is that what the reader gains from the image is precisely the same in each case, it makes no difference and really isn't worth arguing about. I suggest leaving this be and moving on. Wiw8 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wild Malus sieversii apple in Kazakhstan" is confirmable by the usda. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that the author of a photo is a reliable source for purposes of determining what the photo depicts? Because the author of this photo is pretty unambiguous as to what the photo in question depicts. --Maxa megalon 2000 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that some sources are inherrently more generally and widely considered reliable sources than others. Material from self published sites whose text "verifying" the current claim has changed since the begining of this discussion at wikipedia is a far less reliable source than an officical government publication. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming farcical. This WP:OR angle is increasingly Alice-in-Wonderland-esque, and now there's a suggestion above that we need to crop the image to only show the sign, as per Wikipedia:IUP#Rules_of_thumb! This is a strange suggestion: the subject is a person playing The Game; signs do not play all by themselves. Please leave this image be and go and edit some of the more needy articles out there. Fences and windows (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin

The "Finchley Central hypothesis" is that the Game originated from a game similar to Mornington Crescent in the mid-70s in Cambridge Uni, and it is quite convincing. The source is blacklisted... Apparently The Game was created as an example of a game not possible to be examined using Conway's Game Theory. Can we include a mention of this somehow? (not sure what the site did to get blacklisted). "Finchley Central" (before it became The Game) was mentioned in a maths game magazine in the 70s as an example of a "non-game", see http://www.urticator.net/essay/4/466.html Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Finchley Central is also mentioned in Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstader, citing the article in Manifold. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting essay here on unplayable games, referring to Finchley Central: http://www.geocities.com/j_r_partington/quintics.html. Fences and windows (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First internet reference: Zarel removed my addition of "An early example on the Internet dates from 2002.aardvark.dj (10 August 2002). "The Game (I lost!)". theaardvark blog. Retrieved 2009-03-24." as vandalism. You might not disagree with the inclusion, but don't bandy around accusations of vandalism so easily, please. It is the earliest reference anyone can seem to find on the web; I'm interested in including some information on the origins of The Game, if we can. Fences and windows (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now I see Zarel cut out the "See also" section. I'm adding it back. I'm trying to improve the page by pointing to similar concepts. The Game is an inside joke and a meme, and it is similar to other weird games, like Mornington Crescent or Nomic, and Metamagical Themas discusses similar "non-games". Overzealous protection of this page risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fences and windows (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i tried using a radio interview recording hosted on this site as a reference before. discovered it was blacklisted, looked into it trying to find the reason and/or get it whitelisted for legitimate use. got a baseless, malicious SSP filed against me by none other than mickmacnee, seconded by ohnoitsjamie, and was indef blocked with no evidence. eventually i got unblocked by a more reasonable admin after i explained the situation enough times, although i still had to promise not to edit the Jonty Haywood article until i'm more experienced (he's the site owner and i was trying to refer to the recording in the article about him). but now ohnoitsjamie has basically said, screw the rules, if i even mention that site by name, he'll indef block me... earlier this month i responded to the other discussion about origins above simply saying there were some listed on that site - check out my talk page to see what happened next. so i guess what i'm saying is i'd love to help you with this, as i looked in to it quite a bit before, but i'd prob get indefblocked and am afraid you'd get the same treatment (they'd prob call you my sock, or meatpuppet, or a duck, or whatever). as the debate about this harmless image has shown, there are some editors here who have such a huge dislike of this topic they'll do anything they can to ridicule, insult, threaten, attack and drive off any well-meaning editors that try to make positive edits to the article. i think zincbelief's been on the receiving end of this too. so, if you're going to look into the blacklisting of that site or even bring up the idea of using it as a source, be careful! Jessi1989 (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot comment on this specific situation, much of the discussion and behavior from OhNoItsJamie and MickMacNee has been entirely unacceptable. While I do not doubt they have plenty of useful contributions, they both have a long history of assuming bad faith, and Wikilawyering. Their talk page archives are full of complaints of situations like these with no action taken on any of them. At least on this page, both have been extremely rude to every other editor except each other, and both have been incredibly obstructive even of relatively benign and constructive edits. Worst of all, OhNoItsJamie seems to have blocked users on more than one occasion without a valid reason.

Jessi, if your complaint is legitimate, I implore you to take it up with other administrators; there is no reason Jamie should be an admin. Eebster the Great (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to revert that much. Someone changed "A player announcing her loss" to "A woman holding a sign announcing her loss"; I was just trying to change that part back. --Zarel (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi F&W. I see your intention now in adding this section, but would you consider reformatting as a proper section with textual content, rather than a mere list of links? – Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added some formatting, I hope this makes things more understandable. Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironic process theory

I replaced the note about the "White Bear Phenomenon" with a fuller explanation about ironic processing, as it redirected to that page anyway: "The Game is an example of ironic processing, in which attempts to avoid certain thoughts make those thoughts more persistent. A classic example is Dostoevsky's quote: “Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute.”". It was removed as original research. This is odd as I wasn't coming up with anything new in my edit, just explaining better than a mention of the White Bear Phenomenon. I've added a "See also" link for now, but I do think we can include a mention of ironic processing in the text of the article without breaching WP:OR. It certainly can't be argued that The Game isn't an example of ironic processing! Fences and windows (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A reference is here: http://www.laloyolan.com/entertainment/you-just-lost-the-game-1.1589859. Also here to White Bear Phenomenon (which is an example of IPT): http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_manager_of_site_%27Lose_The_Game%27.

I like this addition to the article, it's really starting to feel complete now. Despite the concerted efforts of a team of admins to delete all contributions to the page I think it's really looking good, and could even reach GA status with some luck.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that I keep losing The Game because this article is in my watchlist.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent stub edits

MickMacnee recently cut down the article somewhat to nearly stub length. While some of the edits did pare down somewhat redundant statements, and removing the external links was obviously sensible, many edits cut out or shortened important information. The article's current manifestation is far worse than the article right before, now with a series of disjointed facts placed in a random order. One helpful sentence was regarded as "pointless" that is rather important. All the sections were removed, which makes no sense, makes the article more difficult to read, and goes against typical Wikipedia policy. The entire infobox for the image was removed for no good reason (the caption actually was helpful in describing the point of the photo, and the rest of the information is a summary similar to that of nearly every other page on a game). For some reason the list of three rules was converted to prose, which doesn't help anybody. Finally, while I'll buy that the school newspaper isn't a reliable source, there was no reason to remove the Wikinews link. The link does nothing to aid spamming blacklisted links, increase their hits, or move the page up on search engines. Yes it interviews the host of a blacklisted site, but that in itself is not a justification for removing the interview.

To avoid confusion, the edits that occurred after MickMacnee and before this complaint were useless and justifiably reverted. Eebster the Great (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It was looking good,[3] until the latest edits. While I understand being bold, the page had been quite stable and it would have been polite to discuss major changes. Some specifics:

Mick removed a citation to the Los Angeles Loyolan, a university newspaper:[4]. Where in WP:RS does it say that student newspapers are not allowed? The newspaper has a team of editors,[5] it isn't like a school newsletter.
A link to an interview by Wikinews was removed.[6] Mick says that the interview is "not relevant", but the interview is about The Game and Haywood's site about The Game, so it is clearly relevant. The other reason for removal is that it refers to Jonty Haywood's site (I will not write it here as Jessi1989 and ZincBelief were both blocked for doing so). Removing a link because it links to a blacklisted link is unusual, and I would argue overzealous. I can understand not using it as a reference; that was a slip.
The original reason for blacklisting Haywood's site (see here) no longer seems to apply. The "strategies" section that suggested spamming Wikipedia (a good reason for blacklisting!) has been removed. I can only find two cases of users trying to add the link on COIreport, and the most recent was in March 2008 when a user tried to add the link to this page:[7].
The infobox was removed, as well as the figure legend. We had consensus to include a legend, and consensus that the subject of the picture was playing the Game and that this was not WP:OR. Do we have to go over this all again? As for the rest of the infobox, which other aspects were original research? It all seemed to reflect article content.
What is wrong with having an external link to xkcd?[8]. What part of WP:EL does it fail?

Fences and windows (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not reduced it to a stub, it never was a stub. It's word length now is surely about 80% what it was, minus redundancy/repetition, nonsense (it is not surprising that made up rules for imaginary games have no enforceable punishments), and needless window dressing such as using a section header for one or two sentences, only to repeat information across sections. If the text appears disjointed, that is not my doing, I have not altered any 'flow' the article did or did not have, because I have not actually removed any factual content. Once removed of redundancy, leaving the three rules as bullets when they only amount to about ten words each, is pointless, reading them in prose form is not taxing at all. The infobox served no purpose and amounted to needless window dressing. I glossed over the debate over the validity of what the girl in the image apparently told her friend who then emailed one of you, it all looked to rather miss the point. The image as it stands with no caption, does what it is supposed to do, if you are one of those that actually thinks it is usefull and relevant. The webcomic fails EL because it does not expand understanding of the article, and it is borderline spam for directing you to an irrelevant site whose main purpose is hosting comics and nothing to do with the article. It was just yet another uneccessary use of a section header. It is also a rather pointless 'loss inducer' that will create needless tomfoolery of the kind this article attracts all the live long day. The blacklisting issue is done and dusted, and has recently failed yet again it seems. The link, and roundabout mentions of it in the article using WN interwikis, are of course innappropriate. And besides, it does not contain anything that is not already in the article anyway. The student newspaper is definitely unreliable, even more so when the article is a reader submission resembling a blog posting. Feel free to have that tested at the relevant noticeboard, but the actual source was only actually supporting the stating of the obvious anyway, I did not remove any content when I removed it as a source. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted most of MickMacNee's recent edits. I didn't add back in the xkcd link because it fails WP:ELNO #13. --Zarel (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you claimed talk page consensus for that revert. That is a rather bold statement given the actual content of this talk page, compared to the changes I actually made. MickMacNee (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, three people were against your changes (Eebster the Great, Fences and Windows, myself), and no one had said anything to defend them, so I thought it was enough consensus. Furthermore, I only reverted those of your changes that were contested. --Zarel (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am removinng the Interwiki news link - If the current attempts to have the site removed from the blacklist continue to fail, which they have so far, and this article continues to contain no mention of Haywood or his site, then getting around this by including an interwiki link, to an article that does not even have any extra information on the topic, is highly innappropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stay civil - "nonsense"; "borderline spam"; "pointless loss inducer" (the whole article makes people lose the Game); "tomfoolery"; "needless window dressing": all unnecessary language. I hate the vandalism this page attracts too (and I spend time reverting it), but "drive by vandalism" by IP editors and well-meaning edits intended to improve the article are two very different things.

I agree with Mick about Zarel claiming consensus too early. However, I don't disagree with reverting the changes, per WP:BRD.

This is not about trying to advocate for Jonty Haywood. We commonly link to Wikinews articles, and a dislike of Haywood shouldn't get in the way of linking to a relevant article on Wikinews. The idiocy of him advocating vandalising Wikipedia shouldn't mean we hold a grudge forever. The discussion on blacklisting is here, btw:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#losethegame.com.

As for XKCD, WP:ELNO#13 mentioned by Zarel doesn't apply; the link is to a specific webcomic page, not to the site in general, and the comic is about the topic and not tangential. You might not like linking to it as you may not think that humour is educational, but declaring it in breach of the EL rules without explaining how isn't the right approach. Saying that linking to it is "borderline spam" is hyperbole; I have no connection to xkcd and have never linked it to from Wikipedia before, and xkcd is already a very notable and popular webcomic with a traffic rank of about 2,500, so a link to it hardly drives significant traffic. Less than 1% of visitors to xkcd even look at the store.

I find this phrase to be telling: "it is not surprising that made up rules for imaginary games have no enforceable punishments". The Game isn't "imaginary" - it exists. It was invented (probably by maths students at Cambridge in the mid-70s, but I haven't got a RS for that...), but it is notable now. It's an example of a "non-game", i.e. it isn't analyzable under Game Theory. Fences and windows (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything here, except the XKCD external link. Frankly, there is no reason to link the page, even if you think you can find the necessary WP:EL loopholes. ELs are supposed to be not just minor bits of related material but sites essential to better understanding of the page. They have to include material that cannot be incorporated into the article (I do not buy the copyright argument here) and add significant understanding to the topic (which the comic obviously does not). In general, ELs are quite substantial. A good EL might be the homepage of the article's topic or a major associated organization; it might be the official online copy of the artistic work in question, or perhaps even a collection or works. Linking to random tidbits of related material is just not worth the space, and honestly, a comic saying "You won the game" is just that. I guess the best thing to keep in mind about ELs is to keep them to a minimum, and that a lack of them is not an excuse to add more. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

By WP:ELNO #13, I mean "Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". The article is about The Game. The XKCD comic proposes a nonstandard (and usually rejected) method of winning The Game, rather than about The Game itself. --Zarel (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Zarel, Eebster - thank you! I may have been being a bit obtuse about the xkcd link, but your explanations are good, and I won't argue for inclusion. Explaining the reasons for an edit or removal is much better than just referencing a rule. Fences and windows (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider this disruptive editing by MickMacNee and will be making a complaint about this. --ZincBelief (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipuffery

This article is puffed out to the max to over egg the subject, which when you strip out all the crap, has a vanishingly small amount of factual information. For example, why the infobox? I guess arguing that it is useless will be a repeat of arguing how/why the image is useless, but therein lies the difference between the philosophies of what is and isn't adding to an article. Secondly, and most ridiculously, why have two or three line sections? The 'lede' explains the rules, which are then repeated in the section directly below. The only reason for the one inch distance between these duplicate pieces of info is that the article has innappropriate sections. Even the largest section, 'Origins' has been puffed out by inclusion of tangentially 'helpful' information, the Dostoevsky quote. The article could quite clearly and obviously exist as a single two or three paragraphs. Perhaps then that might focus readers on the obvious contradictions and rendunant wording within it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipuffery? This essay (not a policy) doesn't apply here. What you see as puffery is simply explaining the subject. The Dostoevsky quote isn't padding; I added it to explain the otherwise fairly incomprehensible mention of the "White Bear Phenomenon". Explaining things to benefit readers is not puffery. The lead of an article summarises the content of the article, so some repetition between the lead and article is to be expected. The infobox might be seen as 'padding', but what an infobox does is summarise information: "they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format." The image and the infobox are not at all the same, don't conflate the two issues. The manual of style says: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox" and "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article". I agree that we need to avoid too many sections, and have just made some edits to correct this. Fences and windows (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dostoevsky quote and the whole ironic processing appear to be violations of WP:SYN which IS a policy. And while PUFFERY may not apply, WP:COATRACK seems to be applicable here as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN applies to information from multiple sources combined to advance a position not mentioned in either (this is not necessarily always incorrect, but is considered OR). The Dostoevsky quote here is used to explain ironic processing, not The Game. The quote is not used to advance any position regarding The Game. More importantly, there IS a specific source relating this quote directly to the subject matter: The LA Loyolan reference. This complies totally with WP:SYN. As for WP:Coatrack, I don't understand how it applies at all. What biased position is being pushed? In what way is this article superficial or a mask for other purposes? Again, simply blindly flinging policies at well-meaning editors is not a constructive method of improving an article.

To MickMacnee, your dislike of The Game seems to have you permanently set against expansion of the article. If your opinion is that the entire article is worthless, then it is clearly impossible for you to contribute neutrally, a fact which has certainly showed itself time and time again. I strongly urge you to focus on articles with which you have even a modicum of experience, understanding, or interest. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack? You've got to be kidding. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." Seriously, try reading policies before quoting them. Fences and windows (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hanging Dostoevsky and Ironic Processing on The Game without sources making that connection is indeed Coatracking / WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is that? They are clearly relevant to The Game as the whole philosophy of the two coincide, and we have a source specifically linking them. Besides, to be a coatrack, the article has to be just a facade covering the real point. I have a hard time believing you could prove this article to be anything of the sort. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dostoevsky is not in the source and the source itself is barely within the widest possible consideration of potential definitions of reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Dostoevsky quote helps explain what Ironic Processing is, which is otherwise a bit of a dry academic term. Including it is meant to help readers of the article. I've got no connection with psychology or IPT, there's no coatrackyness going on. Please read WP:COATRACK again, carefully. The inclusion of the information about IPT gives some background to the Game, making the article more interesting, it is sourced to a student newspaper with editorial standards, and it introduces no bias or agenda. Just leave it be. Fences and windows (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedia article interacts with enclyclopedia reader and makes him or her lose The Game

I propose the deletion of this article, I think that it stands in a meta-level above articles about other games. It can interact (and in fact it does) with someone who is actually playing the game and make her automatically lose the game. Imagine an article about chess which makes you lose automatically a game of chess every time you read it. It wouldn't make much sense to have such an article in an encyclopedia. Now, with chess this isn't possible, so we have an article about chess. But the nature of The Game makes impossible to have an article about it in an encyclopedia. I say this because I lost in The Game because I saw this article and I feel that shouldn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.161.169 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Fences&Windows 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK". --Allen3 ^talk 22:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And the article on Don't even think about it! will violate its own spirit by making you think about it. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

huh?

What the heck is this article about? Just b/c its an article on a mind-game doesn't mean reading it has to be one. Make it clear what you're talking about. 71.149.240.123 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific with your questions? I didn't find the page particularly confusing, myself. The article is clearly about a mind game called "The Game," which is played around the world and especially online. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial Rules List

Should there be an unofficial rules List? There are many variations and rules people play by that aren’t part of the first 3 rules. It would also help organize the unofficial rules that are already mentioned in the article. 18:56, 9 August 2009 Regular Mario o}8|3) (talk)

I doubt you will find any objections to this addition as long as you satisfy Wikipedia policy for verifiability by providing reliable sources documenting the variations you wish to include. It is the addition of "house rules" that were made up by unknown persons and added to Wikipedia before being published by a reliable source that is objected to and reverted. --Allen3 ^talk 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Certain things I'd like to point out

Okay, first off, can we remove the part about the prime minister? I nderstnad that it is sourced, but because metro.co.uk publishes does not make it true. There are plenty of people in the United States that play it, and that rule would mean that most of the united states would still be playing it. From what I understand, you NEVER win the game. To win the game, you must have never lost. To never lose, you must have never heard of it. And to have never heard of it, you never played and never could win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.115.116 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "the truth", only what is verifiable. Also, this is a variant, so please continue to play as you wish without fear of the PM ruining your fun. Fences&Windows 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I just added a new section about the same thing. Yes, this should be removed. As to the previous comment, Wikipedia is both about "the truth" and "what is verifiable". Unfortunately, the Metro article is not verifiable (it merely cites that "some players" claim that rule exists; please see the Wikipedia article on Weasel Words for more information). --24.188.248.188 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not required to check the sources of the sources we cite. It's the information that has to be verifiable, not the source. And the information is verifiable - it's from the Metro article. --Maxa megalon 2000 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, could you add my french translation

I translated this article in French but I can't add the link on this page cause its locked. Could anyone do it for me ? thx

Martin Goillandeau, france —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martgoill (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to give us a link to the French Wikipedia article, first. We don't know what it's called. Powers ^T 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. Looks like a bot got to it first. Powers ^T 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)