Talk:Online puzzle

July Deletion and Redirect
I'm undoing this redirect for two reasons: I can't find any reason for the blanket removal of the page in these discussion posts; and secondly, the redirect was to "Puzzle" which has information of rubik's cubes etc... I want information about the phenomenon of online puzzles such as not pron, not a history of the rubik's cube! If you want to delete the article, at least make the information available 'somewhere'. In any case, I don't think this article should be completely removed. 58.110.28.154 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can help put together an article on online puzzle games, using reliable sources for references per our WP:Verifiability policy, then this stands a chance as a seperate article. At the moment, there just isn't enough verified information to warrant it. If you still hold your opinion and want to revert back again, that's fine, I (personally) won't redirect it again. Marasmusine 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?
There is a link on the bottom that liks to an online puzzle. If Wikipedia isn't for advertisin, shouldn't be removed? Or if it's for an example, shouldn't we use Not Pron since just about everyone knows about not pron? User:Jacroe | User_talk:Jacroe | GO M*A*S*H 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If neutrality is an issue and all other online riddles now redirect here, why has the Tim Tang Test been so heavily advertised on this page? Surely this is a page about Online riddles/puzzles and how to solve them and not a place to plug one particular riddle! This is just going back to the way it was before, with every online riddle expecting their own paragraph and description. 82.32.72.31 02:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already had to remove the Tim Tang Test stuff once before; I have done so again and will leave a friendly note for that editor. Edit: Except it appears to be on a dynamic IP address. Marasmusine 09:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete
How come this list got deleted without even having a discussion about it? in my opinion this is not advertising, since all these riddles are free to use. so what's the point in deleting this nice list?


 * I was about to ask the same question. If there was a discussion about it, point me to it, but otherwise I'm returning the list to what it previously was. -- flatluigi (talk/contrib) 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or at least I would if I could. It's a bit out of my depth at the moment to do it. -- flatluigi (talk/contrib) 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the riddle list at least ought to be somewhere. Deleting it entirely doesn't seem to make sense. It's simply a list of examples, and the page seems to be mostly worthless without it.
 * How about moving the list to List of online puzzles?
 * Excellent idea. Who wants to be bold?


 * To be honest I'm a bit put out, the only discussions that were had were about whether this was an article about online riddles and how the examples should be presented. So I added the section at the start describing online puzzles in general, and then spent hours editting what was already there into a nice table, just for it to be deleted without a word. Not impressed. (Hatfielder 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC))


 * and even worse, the one who did it (user happy dog as far as i can remember) removed his statement from the discussion. that is not nice and i suggest to put this list back on!


 * As I'm a creator of one of the "advertised" riddles I guess I'm not authorized to complain but I agree that this site without a list of riddles is kind of useless. I think I know what will happen now - for every riddle a new article is created and as far as I remember this articel was (last but not least) created to avoid this. .(Soulmanager 12:23, 5 May 2006 (CET))
 * I've returned the table to the page. No time at the moment to set up the list of online puzzles, but if it's not done later when I have the time, I'll do it. -- flatluigi (talk/contrib) 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm the person who deleted the list of puzzles. Perhaps I should have discussed it first, but I was 'being bold' as the saying goes. As it has caused such a stir, I guess I'd better explain my reasoning! :)

In short, there is no encyclpedic merit that I can see for this list to be included in the article. As Kntrabssi points out below, this article should contain general information about puzzle sites (what they have in common, what the main differences are, etc.). Including a list of sites serves no other purpose than advertising - it is too long and random a list to be a useful reference.

My recommendation is to create new articles for any puzzle sites that are notable enough to warrant it, and to put them all into a category, e.g. Category:Online puzzle sites. We can then link to the category in the 'see also' section for people who are interested in more information. We already have some external links to lists of puzzle sites, which should give more exhaustive lists for people who want that. If a site is not noteworthy enough for it's own article, then it is not noteworthy enough for inclusion on this page either.

In direct response to some of the above points:
 * (flatluigi): "in my opinion this is not advertising, since all these riddles are free to use"
 * Advertising something free is still advertising.


 * (Hatfielder): ''"[I] spent hours editting what was already there into a nice table, just for it to be deleted without a word"
 * I'm sorry about that - I know annoying it is to have your hard work removed (I have experienced this myself), but unfortunately spending time on something is not a valid argument for it's inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * (217.162.162.136): "and even worse, the one who did it (user happy dog as far as i can remember) removed his statement from the discussion."
 * I am not sure what you are referring to here... I have not (as far as I'm aware) removed any of my comments.  Please be more specific.


 * (Soulmanager): "for every riddle a new article is created and as far as I remember this articel was (last but not least) created to avoid this"
 * The notability requirement should apply equally to riddle-sites as to any other website. Any non-notable website that has an article created about it will be an immediate candidate for speedy deletion, so why should we give these non-notable sites a home here?

--HappyDog 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a quick notice, that statement about advertising is not mine. I feel the same way that you do, that there should be a category or a list, but just deleting the table was, if there is such a thing, too bold. I'll move the table to List of Online Puzzles, and, once pages are set up for notable puzzles, that can be removed in favor for . -- flatluigi (talk/contrib) 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Hatfielder): ''"[I] spent hours editting what was already there into a nice table, just for it to be deleted without a word"
 * I'm sorry about that - I know annoying it is to have your hard work removed (I have experienced this myself), but unfortunately spending time on something is not a valid argument for it's inclusion in Wikipedia.

Sorry, please don't misunderstand me I didn't object to my efforts being removed, I just expected that there would have been some warning and discussion in advance. Especially as what I did seem to fit with the suggestions which had been made in discussions. (Hatfielder 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Re-Write
This seems to be more of a list of riddles, as opposed to an article ABOUT online riddles. I'm proposing at least a partial re-write of this article. Perhaps we could seperate these links into a list and link that to an article which is actually about the riddles, the history of the riddles, some common elements in these riddles, etc. Kntrabssi 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section at the top that discusses the various formats and techniques of online puzzles. Feel free to remove it or edit whatever you like - it's not easy to write a summary as many of thes sites are quite different to each other. Sites such as Puzzledonkey, Puzzletome, Hadtoplayon, ThePuzzlefiles, Qwyzzle and theriddlecontest are quite divorced from the notpron style sites. I've now reorganised the huge list of sites into a table, stripping away most of the information that is a standard feature of all online puzzle sites while trying to retain most of the information on the page.(Hatfielder 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Closed deletion listing
This article was listed for deletion on 18 May, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of no consensus. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Votes_for_deletion/Not pron. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being bold and moving to Online puzzles for merge
I'm being bold and moving this from Not pron to Online puzzles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Notpron is (or soon will be) important enough to have its own article. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merging from Frvade
Frvade's article would fit better here IMHO, being a small article and so strongly related to the puzzles covered here, specially Notpron. CharlesDexterWard 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've not seen this particular site, but from a brief look it appears similar to other online puzzles. Definately should be merged.

Since this is more or less a straightforward decision, I will be bold as well and merge these now. CharlesDexterWard 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How to organize these riddles?
It occurs that there's no ryhme or reason to the organization of the riddles under "Other Riddles." Should we organize them alphabetically, by date created, or some other means? I'm refraining from making any sweeping edits until I get a sense of what others would like to see.Energythief 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the better way to make it would be to organize them alphabetically. It will make it easier for someone looking for a specifical puzzle to find it quicker. Also, IMHO the information provided in some of the subsections is not NPOV, and should be "normalized" somehow, e.g. <>; <>; <>; and many more. Seems like if someone was trying to get visitors more than offer objective information. Charles Dexter Ward 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What do those abbreviations mean? I can't understand what your saying.--24.190.140.116 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * <> is an abbreviation of one of the puzzles in the article. "NPOV" means "Neutral point of View", one of the key tenets of Wikipedia articles. This whole article, on the other hand, is quickly becoming an advertisement, and I think I'll make the edits suggested by CDW (above) as soon as I have time. I think a simple listing of information in a list should do it... riddle name, link, current number of levels, etc.Energythief 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've alphabetized the list. Next, I'll run through them and try to eliminate NPOV. Energythief 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why whoever edited this article on [Revision as of 02:34, 30 March 2006] randomly decided to remove the information about 4 different sites? I can see no difference between these sites and many others listed on this page, and wondered why those particular ones were removed.

Clarification on "The First" Online Puzzle
I believe the website given the title of "the first" online puzzle/riddle game needs to be double-checked. The earliest such site I remember was The Stone (www.thestone.com), circa 2000. That would make it earlier than Cybertrek, which the article claims to be the first.


 * This has obviously been edited since your post, but nonetheless the two sites currently listed in the 'origins' section both seem to have dates that are _later_ than some of the others in this list. I have removed this section and merged the sites into the list.  For this article an origins section will need to have it's sources clearly cited as there will be many competing claims, which without verification these are pointless to include. --HappyDog 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Notpron?
What is the meaning and origin of the term "Notpron"? --Lambiam Talk 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Notpron is the corruption of "not porn," which is in itself referencing the online puzzle "this is not porn." -- flatluigi (talk/contrib) 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And why is notpron listed as the only one of these riddles? All others have been deleted exept notpron? whats the sense in that? either there is no riddle or I want my riddle back in here as well.

Wikipedia is not advertising. While the inclusion of notpr0n may or may not be appropriate, there is little doubt that it is the most well-known and one of the most foundational riddles in this genre. Energythief 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

so what? what was all the discussion about the riddles to be mentioned about then? whether well-known or not, fact is that the result of the discussion was, not to mention the riddles, but to describe what it is. i don't see the point of notpron being mentioned.

Hypocrisy
Yes, hypocrisy. Though not in possession of a vested interest, as it were, it is easy to understand why those who do maintain an interest feel that they are not getting a fair shake.

It is utterly nonsensical to propose that 'Wikipedia is not advertising', and, based on this highly inaccurate tenet, a list of the various free gratis online riddles may not be published in one of its articles. In the face of that alleged impartiality, Wikipedia is cleverly advertised in the very article that poses the impetus for the argument, as if to imply that it is beyond reproach, an immense phenomenological entity that may be implied as such in one of its own articles without debate. Alongside Google, no less. Even Encyclopedia Britannica never stooped to self-reference.

Interestingly, Google is not linked, but Notpron is linked twice, once in the article and once in the link to "a large list of online riddles", which just happens to take the user directly to the Notpron message board. Perhaps this is the fear of competition manifesting itself, or perhaps there is some Wiki-logic regarding household words and stock prices. There is also the highly suspect terminology characterizing Notpron as the most popular of the online puzzles. This reeks of either blatantly inept research, as if the author simply Googled the names of a few riddles to see which one produced the most results (Google's algorhythms function in a network of cells, making this method extremely inaccurate), or flagrant favoritism relying on the user's ignorance to remain undetected (sorry, but the word Notpron is no more recognizable to the average surfer than the word Pron). In any case, there is no manner in which it can be reasoned that one riddle can be linked while the others cannot, particularly if the argument is to simply report on the concept of online puzzles in an abstract sense. But therein lies the real problem.

Beyond the generous serving of erroneous entries, there is ultimately no objection to Wikipedia's devotion of entire pages to a myriad of popular culture media minutia, such as a television commercial, a painting, or song lyrics. Whether or not Wikipedia opts to implicitly recognize the fact, online puzzles are a pop culture phenomenom no less deserving of in-depth study than, say, the 11 minute clip known as "MySpace: The Movie", a list of quotes from "The Simpsons", or the summary and a YouTube.com link to Paris Hilton's "Stars Are Blind" music video. All of the aforementioned, believe it or not, can be found on their own Wiki-pages, discussed in meticulous detail.

Those who maintain some semblance of control over the content of these pages need to realize the hard truth: despite its best intentions, the byproduct of Wikipedia is de facto free advertising, albeit inadvertent. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with denying it to the detriment of others. It is an intrinsic trait of the internet and, more concisely, internet documentation, that anything requiring scrutiny of veracity and/or validation is linked to its source material. Essentially, the link, or even the reference to the link, is an advertisement in and of itself, let alone all of the brand merchandising taking place in the articles. And people wonder why information gathered from Wikipedia comes with a complimentary grain of salt.

There is no credible argument that can be put forth which will justify suddenly singling out a particular entity and nobly proclaiming "we have to draw the line here, folks". Wikipedia has no rational, moral, intellectual, or political leg to stand on regarding this matter. If it is acceptable to link people to a list of over 70 paraphilia that includes over 250 links to urls such as autoerotic-asphyxiation.com, altpenis.com, fetishexchange.org, rotten.com, queenoffarts.com, sexymisslizz.com, wetset.net, nambla.org, et al, then it is acceptable to link people to a list of free riddles.

StewartDaniels 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Stewart Daniels


 * Stewart, I assume you're referring to my comment when you mention "Wikipedia is not advertising" in your initial paragraph. The reason I said that was the comment of the poster above me: "either there is no riddle or I want my riddle back in here as well". This kind of sentiment completely violates NPOV. I have no issue with having the list of riddles - in fact, I have a riddle of my own, and enjoyed seeing it linked here when we had the list in the past - but I have a problem with someone purposefully (and anonymously, mind you) adding content to a page expressly for self-promotion. If the poster's riddle is worthy of inclusion, let it be included, along with every other one we can find. What I was arguing is that consensus should determine what's here and what's not. As a somewhat biased participant, I am refraining from adding or removing riddles. Let others with no vested interest take that bold move. (And thanks for the list of bizzare links!)Energythief 07:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was referring to your comment, but only because I see the general sentiment being tacitly implied all over Wikipedia in defense of its content. Anyone can take a cursory perusal of Wikipedia's content and discern this specific hypocrisy repeatedly manifesting itself.  As for online puzzles in particular, I have now contributed a discussion in the Notpron article which directly relates to this argument, as I find it even more hypocritical that the Notpron article even exists while the issues in this article are being discussed.  Here is the link: Notpron discussion-You've got to be kiddingStewartDaniels 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)StewartDaniels

Looks like StewartDaniels was right, there's no way to keep people from advertising their riddles on this page. I think the solution is that a list of riddles should possibly be allowed somewhere though I'm not sure where, but that this page shouldn't mention any of them by name.