Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive 3

New source
Article about The Game here, I can't tell really what kind of site it is. Does this count as a blog, or does it count as a reputable source? Jdcooper 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been brought up before. It looks like a blog, though one that seems to be written professionally (the copyright belongs to a corporation). I believe that on any other article this source would be sufficient to cite facts from, especially if these facts are uncontroversial, but not enough on its own to establish WP:V (that takes a published source, but thankfully we have one). But that probably won't fly given the Wikipolitical situation of this article, as it's being held to a much stricter interpretation of WP:RS than the rest of Wikipedia.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgetting Game
I believe that this article existed as Forgetting game before it became The Game (game). How do I access the history of the original Forgetting game page? Kernow 20:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgetting game was moved here. There's nothing in its deleted history but one redirect to this page.  That redirect was created by the pagemove, dated 03:22, November 2, 2004.  Then the page was deleted 17:27, March 22, 2006 by Sean Black, because this page had beed deleted, and why have a redirect to a deleted page? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that The Game (game) existed before the Forgetting game, and that someone added the Forgetting game as a redirect to here? I was under the impression that the first article about The Game was put under that title and then it was moved here. Has the Forgetting game page ever contained any infomation or was it always just a redirect? Kernow 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What he means is that The Game (game) originated as the Forgetting game, but was moved here. When a page is moved, its edit history is moved to the destination page, and all that is left on the source page is the redirect. Timrem 16:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right. Forgetting game was the first article that got written, but in November '04, it and its history were moved here, and all that was left there was a redirect with no history.  That's how page moves work.  All the edits in this page's history that predate the pagemove used to be at Forgetting game, which is pretty apparent if you look at them. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the help. Kernow 22:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Meme
I don't think that the article itself should mention The Game as being a meme, as we can't source it. I don't think we should have it in "See Also" because at this point, that would have as much value as "See Also: things you can remember" or "See Also: Human concepts" Darquis 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, there is no point saying "The Game is a meme" because almost everything on Wikipedia is a meme. However, the concept of memes is that certain ideas will be told to other people when you think about them. In this sense, The Game is a very interesting meme. It could possibly be described as the simplest meme, as the only reason for telling someone else is that this is the objective of The Game. I liked the sentence in a previous version of the article that said something like "The Game is an example of a succinct meme." Does information like this really need to be sourced when it has to be true by definition? Surely this a case of it being obvious to any reasonable adult that knows what The Game is and what memes are. Kernow 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. In that sense, I don't have any objection to it, as it's a special type of meme.  So long as it's similar to how you just described it (thus giving it relevance) and not just mentioning The Game is a meme, by all means, go for it.  Darquis 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not doubt that The Game is a meme. That fact is not asserted in the single source cited.  Therefore, the assertion that the Game is a meme, and especially that it is an interesting meme for any reason, is OR.  It is almost certainly true, but it is OR.  Dang it all, if this thing is really a phenomemon, someone credible must have written some analysis of it in a reliable source. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Game is a meme by definition. Please read the meme article. A meme can refer to any idea stored in a human brain, it has nothing to do with notability. If I invent the word "splunglefabble" it now also a meme because at least one person, me, knows about it. You are a meme with a fad/craze. 80.193.24.46 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An outside perspective
I realise I am a relatively new editor and as such perhaps my comments aren't appropriate in such a hot debate but after sitting here reading through all the deletion discussions and reviews and the talk pages I really feel obliged to add my thoughts. Hopefully this objective viewpoint will make a positive, if minor, contribution to what seems to be a very heated, complicated and somewhat confused debate.

It seems quiet clear that as a result of strong feelings for and against this article there are now two hardcore 'sides' in this debate, both of whom show no signs of wanting to 'give up'. As a result, arguments are thrown in which have either been discussed and rightly dismissed already, refer to factually incorrect information, or refer to Wikipedia policy documents when they don't actually apply. This I believe is very dangerous for Wikipedia because there is a risk that the 'wants' of the side that cries loudest will take precedent over the consensus of the debatees such as JoshuaZ who are providing unbiased opinion, looking at the facts and basing their arguments on correct policy and procedure. I think it would be useful to step back for a minute and examine the arguments for deletion of the article, the counter-arguments, and what it all now boils down to.

Arguments for deletion:

1) "The Game is not notable and therefore doesn't merit inclusion."

2) "The Game is silly and childish and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia."

3) "The Game does not have any sources permissable by WP:V and should therefore not exist."

I will now summarise the key points in the deletion debate following each of these arguments.

1)


 * The notability of The Game can be shown by, amongst other things, the overwhelming number of clearly related (to The Game as described in the article) but unrelated (to each other) returns in a Google search for "just lost the game".


 * Wikipedia made The Game notable therefore the article should be deleted since Wikipedia should not create primary sources.


 * Whether or not Wikipedia made The Game notable is an arguable and unprovable statement and therefore should not be used to suggest the deletion of the article. Also, some sources point to the existence of The Game before existence of the article, therefore Wikipedia did not create the phenomenon.


 * The sources that prove Wikipedia did not create the phenomenon are not reliable sources.

2)


 * There is no Wikipedia policy which states that an article on a topic which some consider 'silly' should be deleted.


 * True, however, the Game is an unencyclopedic topic.


 * Again, just because something is considered by some to be in the domain of children's games, this does not brand it as unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

3)


 * The Game is inherently sourceless and is therefore a special case. The fact that so many people play it as seen online should be enough verification.


 * WP:V is firm, non-negotiable policy and cannot be trumped, the article should be deleted.


 * An advert in MacAddict and MacWorld magazines referenced The Game.


 * The advert refers only to the Wikipedia article and therefore does not count. If a source is found in a major newspaper or magazine, then there will be no problem.


 * An article about The Game has been written in a major Belgian newspaper.


 * This article does not state its sources/the paper is not major/is Belgian, therefore this source does not pass.


 * The language is irrelevant, and if a verifiable source has to refer to a verifiable source, then no verifiable source can truly exist.


 * The newspaper article might have used Wikipedia as its source, as it resembles the original article in content, therefore does not count. The article therefore fails WP:V, and should still be deleted.


 * This is speculation and therefore should not be used as a reason to delete the article.

Finally, since this is a discussion, I'd like to add the conclusions I myself have drawn from what I've read.

1) It's really very clear that the game is notable based on web searches alone. So notability is not the issue. What is more interesting, is whether the notability is down to the existence of the article itself. Yes it is likely that The Game would be less notable now if it weren't for this article; from web searching it is clear that people have pasted links to this article in lieu of explaining the rules to people. But did this cause a spread of The Game which would not have existed without the article? It probably helped people spread it more easily, but did it cause the spread? These are two very different things. An article in an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference point to which people can turn for more information about something once they have already heard of it. This is because encyclopedias are trusted as being reliably sourced. So would an 'article lacking sources' flag have been sufficient?

2) This doesnt seem to be a well thought out argument, seemingly just used as ammo for deletion. I'm sure millions of people have already said this, but if we accepted 'this is a silly/childish topic' as a reason to delete an article, this would pave the way for the deletion of a huge number of perfectly encyclopedic articles.

3) So, we arrive at the verifiabilty issue. Taking account of all the above, it seems that this whole debate boils down to one question: "Does this article satisfy WP:V now that it has been described in a major Belgian newspaper?" If this was a new article, without any prior history or huge noisy heated debate, I don't think there would be any question. The question, therefore, seems to boil down further to "should this source be excluded because it may have used Wikipedia as a source?"

To answer this we need to consider the following:


 * Why do we consider major newspapers as reliable sources? Is it because we assume, as we have to, that any major newspaper that wishes to remain respectable will ensure the verifiability of its own content, so WE don't have to verify it ourselves through our own research? In other words, perhaps we have to assume that as a major national publication, this paper would not publish an article which used a single Wikipedia entry as its source, especially one which even at the time of publishing was flagged as unsourced and rife with controversy.


 * Assuming we accept the above, should we concern ourselves with the possibility that the popularity of The Game implied by the article is conceivably a product of the presence of the Wikipedia article? Well, concern ourselves we should, because it gives lessons for the future about allowing articles such as this to survive for so long without sources. Should we delete the article now because of this? Again, let's turn to Wikipedia policy. Is there a policy statement which says that an article which satisfies all inclusion criteria should be excluded from Wikipedia if Wikipedia in the past had some influence in the notability of the topic?

So, in conclusion I think all of this boils down to this last question. I'm not an expert Wikipedian so I can't answer it. All I can offer is that if there was another Wikipedia, and this article was created for the first time now, with its current notability AND reliable source(s), then I see no reason why it would be unacceptable, and as such, I think we should put past troubles aside and keep it. Wiw8 22:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done mate - great analysis - totally agree. DJR (Talk) 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting analysis, you may want to put a note on the Deletion Review that you have made such an analysis, and put a link to here or put a copy of this on the talk page of the deletion review. JoshuaZ 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but I'm not buying it. The issue about the newspaper as a reliable source satisfying WP:V is still valid and highly pertinent. Two questions hang over that: one, is this in any way a reliable source; and two, has that source obtained its information from Wikipedia. Those questions must be answered to satisfy point three of the verifiability policy criteria; "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." In the absence of any evidence of the reliability of the newspaper article, I still think this article has to go. Kinitawowi 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And the reason it's not possible to say whether any of the information comes from Wikipedia is because the article doesn't say where it got any of its information at all. Even news articles that rely entirely on anonymous sources at least say they rely on anonymous sources, which allows the reader to choose whether to give the sources credence or not. This one doesn't say… anything.


 * Actually, I suppose this raises an interesting question: what to do when a reliable source publishes an article that completely fails to meet the standards we expect of reliable sources? If De Morgen were to make a habit of publishing unsourced, unverifiable articles on topics with which few people are familiar, it would clearly cease to be a reliable source and become more like the blind-items column in Movieline. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet, although if that is their intention they've made an excellent start at it. So does that mean we should just let this article slide because the publisher has earned sufficient trust to be given the benefit of the doubt every once in a while? Or should we note that that this story bears the earmarks of having not been subjected to the normal newspaper editing process, and assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that it may have slipped through the cracks in the quality control procedures and should therefore be considered unreliable? --phh (t/c) 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kinitawowi:
 * "one, is this in any way a reliable source" - What reason do we have for doubting this? De Morgan is a major Belgian newspaper.
 * "two, has that source obtained its information from Wikipedia" - There is no evidence to suggest this and it would be impossible to establish without contacting the journalist who wrote the article. I think it highly unlikely that the editors would allow an article in a major national newspaper to be based solely on an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 * phh:
 * What you seem to be saying is that, because you don't believe the information given in the article, it is wrong. That rather than your opinion being wrong, a major Belgian newspaper is wrong, even though you have no evidence to support this claim.
 * Many people seem to be claiming that for a source to be reliable, it needs to cite reliable sources. This view is fundamentally flawed, please read the article on infinite regress. Kernow 23:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the information in the article is wrong, and I am not saying I don't believe it. If this were about what I personally believe to be true there wouldn't be much of a controversy here. Unfortunately, I'm not always going to be around to vet articles for readers—and even if I were, what reason would anyone have to trust me? The point of WP:V and WP:RS is to create a reference that requires as few leaps of faith as possible from the reader. Ideally a Wikipedia article should never say "trust me" to the reader at all--every assertion of fact, or at least every potentially controversial assertion of fact, should be backed by a reliable source. It's the job of the reliable source to ascertain the accuracy of the information before printing it… otherwise it's not a reliable source and we can't use it. If a source is reliable, by definition, it can be assumed to have used reliable sources itself, so we as consumers of the information shouldn't have to follow the chain of custody any further than that.


 * Did this newspaper ascertain the accuracy of this information before running the story? Well, we don't know, because it doesn't say where the information comes from, in violation of every journalistic tenet known to man. Media organizations put their credibility on the line every time they use anonymous sources, or sources that are otherwise not available to the general public, which is why we expect them to be reliable before we'll trust them. If this article had anonymous sources, it would be an improvement. Instead, it doesn't have any sources at all, so we're forced to rely upon De Morgen's credibility as a newspaper for evidence that the anonymous reporter didn't simply make it all up. Essentially, it's asking us to trust us, but it's not holding up its end of the bargain by telling us why it's asking us to trust us instead of just giving us sources that we could theoretically check out for ourselves. That's the dilemma. --phh (t/c) 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins
Here's a Google cache of Jamie Miller's claim that he created The Game in 1996 (posted 21st October 2002). Kernow 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The name of "The Game"

 * Note: I've changed the name of the section, as this seems approriate, also including further justification for it not being called The Game (game), as there was a game running through one of the episode series of the TV series "The Name of the Game", which might also be called The Game (The Game).  If there's objection to the title change, please revert it.

Could we have a general discussion over what it should be titled? I dislike "The Game (meme)" since 1) meme is a vague term that has multiple different meanings. 2) We have no WP:V source to call The Game a "meme" 3) The justification that "it's not the most common use of "the Game" as a game; and it's not verifiable as a game" doesn't hold water since at present we don't have any other articles that are called "the Game" that need that spot and the De Morgen article does describe the Game as a game. JoshuaZ 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The De Morgen article seems to require paid registration to read, even if I knew Dutch. (Perhaps it's not paid, but the registration page is also in Dutch.)  Forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation of colloquial Dutch, as "game", "sport", and a few English synomyns may correspond to the same or different Dutch words.  Perhaps The Game (memory) might be best, if there really were any verification of the existance of the concept this article represents.  The Game (game) should be rejected, not only as a name for the article, but as a redirect source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As for specifics, quoting from the article, itself....

The Game is an interesting example of a meme. Its rules represent the fundamentals of memetic replication. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm missing something here. The existence of this article is currently predicated on treating the De Morgen article as reliable (otherwise the article probably shouldn't exist). Given that, the article refers to The Game as something, a dutch word which means something like "game" or "sport" and certainly does not mean "meme" and we have no source to call The Game a "meme." I would think that a source beats no source. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have two objections. The Game (game) is a bad title, regardless of whether it really exists.  At best, it should be a disambiguation between the first grouping of items from The Game disambiguation page.  If you object to (meme), how about (memory), as I suggested above. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "The Game (memory)" JoshuaZ 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies about the quote from the article. That was written after I moved it, so it doesn't support the move.  OK -- should we move it again, and fix the double redirect from The Game (game)?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as "meme" goes, there was a discussion as to what value, if any, that term has in this article. What I mean is that meme could literally refer to any article on Wiki in one sense (since every article involves our current ideas or concepts of the subject).  The reason meme was included is because it was felt that any adult with non expert knowledge could ascertain that it was a meme.  The article, or the translation we have (see also, the screenshot of said article, since registration (particularly paid) seems a bit much to do) doesn't say meme at all.  In fact, I would question the article's translation if it did; I doubt that's a term in the dutch lexicon.
 * As far as the title, I'm not understanding why The Game (game) needed changed. Was there a strong need for the disambiguation page (if it exists yet, I've not checked) Darquis 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Game (game) is the proper name of a partial disambiguation page of those articles called The Game which are about games. There were three in the main article The Game, so The Game (game) is improperly named.  In terms of notability, I feel the game is only notable as an example of a viral meme, rather than as a game, so The Game (meme) seems more appropriate.  However, I'd accept The Game (memory), provided that the redirect in The Game (game) is changed to a disambiguation page. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having multiple disambiguation pages seems redundant. I would suggest just having it redirect to The Game. JoshuaZ 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joshua, I think having a second disambiguation page from The Game would be overkill. I also don't think that the college football The Game should be titled as such, but that's another matter entirely. Darquis 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please read the meme article before discussing memes, because it would seem there is a serious misunderstanding of what a meme is. To quote myself from the Description Sentence section above:
 * "There is no point in calling The Game a meme, the majority of stuff on Wikipedia is a meme. A meme is simply any idea or concept. I think what this refers to is a common misconception of the word meme, basically meaning a fad. The Game has some interesting memetic properties, but these should be described elsewhere in the article if anywhere. Whoever wants the meme version up should read the meme article first.
 * A meme refers to learned information stored within any human brain. Hence, everything on Wikipedia is, in some sense, a meme. For example, a cat isn't a meme, it's an animal, but our concept of a cat is a meme."

The relevance of The Game to memes I added to the article:
 * "The Game is an interesting example of a meme. Its rules represent the fundamentals of memetic replication."

PHenry removed the word "interesting" saying "'interesting'? not so much." I was not saying The Game is interesting, full stop. I was saying that The Game is interesting as an example of a meme, for the reasons I put in the proceding sentence, because "Its rules represent the fundamentals of memetic replication." If you can think of a better way of wording this then please change it. However, all that PHenry has done is left a completely redundant sentence. It might as well say "The Game is an example of an idea."

For those of you that don't know what a meme is, replace "meme" with "idea". The term meme is used to refer to the evolutionary properties of ideas. Kernow 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ik kan een woordenboek gebruiken alhoewel mijn Duits en Nederlands zeer slecht zijn. In Dutch, spel means game and spelen means to play. As such the title of the De Morgen article says "The Game, the simplest game in the world". Spel doesn't mean sport, as sport means sport. I don't really care what you name the article though. Kotepho 03:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll on the name of "The Game"
Suggested method. Gather potential names for one week, and "vote" (by some mechanism) for one week. Of course, if a name develops a clear consensus before then, I may just move it. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential names:
 * 1) The Game (game)
 * 2) The Game (meme)
 * 3) The Game (memory)
 * 4) The Game (memory game)
 * 5) The Game (forgetting game) (echoing the original name here on Wiki)

My take at the moment:
 * 1. Strong, sow it with salt, NO
 * 2. Preferred by me, but probably unacceptable to some
 * I next prefer #5, since I just came up with the idea, but could live with any of 1-5 other than 1. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Either 4 or 5, with an ever-so-slight lean toward 5, only because it really is more a test of forgetfulness than of rememberness. &mdash;Seqsea (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically agree with Seqsea on this with a preference to 5. Strong dislike of 2 since all thoughts are memes. JoshuaZ 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there something else that needs The Game (game) title, and if so why does it take superiority to this article? As I have said, calling The Game a meme is completely redundant. Why have we changed it from (game)? The claims that The Game is not a game are clearly flawed. I'm not really sure why the name of the article should be decided by a vote, whereas everything within the article needs to be sourced. The Game is a game, the source says The Game is a game, why not The Game (game)? Kernow 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * on The Game there are three things listed under "Games", The Game (college football), The Game (treasure hunt) and this, which is just The Game (game). So fine, not that, but strongly oppose #2, saying something is a meme is saying nothing at all about its nature, not only are both the other two games listed also memes, but so is my arsehole, your arsehole, Christianity and Bohemian Rhapsody. #3 or #4 are both fine by me, #5 sounds a bit naf and i've never heard or read of it being known by that name. Jdcooper 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about The Game (bit of nonsense which lacks a single verifiable English language source but which nonetheless attracts obsessive interest)? Or maybe The Game (complete bollocks)? Just zis Guy you know? 17:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a matter for AfD/VfD/DRV, not here, although I agree with you. :) &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering it's not complete bollocks, no to both. --Liface 18:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to the first one only in so far as we might need to change the title later if an English source is found. And share implied perplexedness(if that's a word) over why it has gotten so much attention here. JoshuaZ 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just zis Guy you know? You do not seem to realise you are included in the "obsessive interest" this article supoosedly attracts. Maybe you should consider whether it is your opinion that is "complete bollocks" rather than everyone elses. Kernow 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's like this: the article was deleted through process as unverifiable from reliable sources. After an intense campaign whihc included setting up a website to save the article, one source has been found - and that is not in English.  Does it not strike you as slightly odd that this supposedly global phenomenon, which is reportedly common in the UK and the US, lacks a single reliable English-labnguage source even after all that searching?  As a wannabe policy wonk I'd say it's fundamentally unverifiable.  And that is why I want it gone.  All we need to change my view is a few reputable English-language references, preferably in peer-reviewed sources. I don't think that arm-waving ever beats policy as a reason to keep or delete an article.  Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If I understand WP:V and WP:RS correctly, language of sources does not alter their acceptability. A lack of English sources goes to notability, not verifiability. JoshuaZ 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like number 5, (forgetting game). Simply (game) is not very descriptive, (meme) may not be applicable, and since memory causes you to lose, I don't like numbers 3 or 4. Timrem 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Game (memory game) as first choice, followed by The Game (forgetting game), The Game (game), then The Game (memory). ~ PseudoSudo 08:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Logistics of the renaming
Is there a tool which can use "What links here" to bulk rename the links to The Game (game) to whereever we decide it should go, as it's not going to end up a simple redirect to this article. It's either going to be a subdisambiguation page or a redirect back to The Game. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If The Game (game) is moved to The Game (foobar), there's no reason the former should not directly point to the latter.  I saw your comment, Arthur, about how The Game (game) is the proper name for a disambig page on types of games named as such, but there's simply not enough of them to merit the creation of such a page.  Anyone who types 'The Game (game)' into the search box will have the sole intention of finding this article; if they were looking for anything else they'd go through 'The Game' to find it. ~ PseudoSudo 08:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When (not if) this article is renamed, I'm going to redirect The Game (game) back to The Game. That seems to be the consensus, although I'd rather delete it as a misleading redirect.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly not trying to incite flames, but please don't try to correct my sentence structure in bold font. You yourself included The Game (game) as choice 1 for potential article titles in the section above.  Rather than disregard my comment and take an authoritative stance on the matter, could you respond to the point I was trying to make?
 * In addition, unless I'm missing something, the demonstration of consensus you speak of refers strictly to JoshuaZ's comment above, 'I would suggest just having it redirect to The Game', followed by a note by Darquis about how a disambig page is a bad idea. ~ PseudoSudo 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why rename? Because it's misleading.  Any game called "The Game" would fit in The Game (game) &mdash; as there is clearly more than one (see the first section of the disambigbuation page The Game for a partial list, referring to a single game as The Game (game) is misleading.  When the article is moved, I'd propose the automatic redirect for deletion, if there was any chance of logic here.  As there isn't, I'll just redirect it to The Game.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)