Talk:The Star Game

NPOV
There may be a COI, as contributor MrOllie pointed out - re the insertion of the COI tag in the article - as it appears a contributor is the guy who authored the virtual edition of the game there was a previous link to. So I've deleted reference to the virtual game and removed the tag. Pavane7 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the above, or any other, virtual form of this game - or any commercial version of the star game - gets referenced or discussed in mainstream publications or sources then I guess mention of it or them could be included in the article here, provided those sources and publications meet the Wikipedia criteria of being a reliable source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Pavane7 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The virtual version of the game was included in a collection on archive.org: http://archive.org/details/TheBigAssOnaCollection Other writings in the archive discuss the non-existence (at time of writing) of a computer implementation, and the relative merits of such. There also exists a Python implementation of the Star Game, by a different author (although a much less complete implementation): http://satanicinternationalnetwork.wall.fm/forum/topic/2422 A Blender model also exists for a 3D model of the complex version of the Star Game (although not a playable game) - formerly hosted at http://mvimaedivm.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/advanced-star-game-3d-model/ and possibly archived somewhere. Mequa (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single mention in one ONA article is sufficient (though I'm open to correction) - the 'virtual game' (or any other computer implementation, commercial or non-commcercial) needs something like a peer review in a reputable gaming mag or several mentions in mainstream books or articles dealing with the ONA or with gaming. Or for its code to be discussed in a credible hacker online review. Pavane7 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A mention somewhere is not sufficient for notability. If sources 2,3,4 and 6 do nothing more than mention "The Star Game", with the rest of this article being bootstrapped from those 4 mentions, then this article should go to AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Kaplan and Bjorgo give Star Game only a half-paragraph mention, the other Kaplan gives it a sentence fragment, and Lewis and Petersen maybe a sentence. I can't see the Senholt or Goodrick mentions in Google Books. I really don't see how this possibly merits a Wikipedia article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with bootstrapping, btw, is that most of the content of this article ends up coming from non-third party sources. Also, bootstrapping is a pretty blatant way to create a promotional article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Useful - and possibly valid - points so the AfD is a good idea. I think the article was originally just a vanity plug for someone's "virtual star game" project and didn't have any third party mainstream references. So I added some and removed the promotional bit and gave some details 'bout the game taken from ONA stuff. Given that there are several mainstream sources which mention the game - even though as you say not in detail - I'd be inclined to vote to keep the article, or if the vote is for delete, then possibly make some mention of the game in the ONA article, giving the mainstream references. Pavane7 (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the ONA talk page, at most the mention in the sources amounts to several sentences, so the question seems to revolve around whether the detail that's given meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, i.e. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. So what does 'in detail' mean? Half a paragraph in a printed book? A paragraph? A page? Several pages? More? The definition of 'detail' in the complete (22 volume) printed Oxford English Dictionary gives "dealing with matters item by item; detailed treatment; attention to particulars." If that's how Wikipedia understands 'in detail' (and I couldn't find their understanding of it given anywhere tho I may have missed it) then half a paragraph and several brief mentions of the star game in mainstream books does not amount to 'in detail' and the article fails the notability criteria and could be deleted. Pavane7 (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If The Star Game does not merit a Wikipedia article of its own, then perhaps the information could be merged into both "David Myatt" (the game's creator) and "Order of Nine Angles" (of which the Star Game is an important aspect). However, I think this article has enough notability, given its history extends back to 1975 to a famous figure. This is a worthwhile niche article in my view and provides genuine content to Wikipedia concerning an occult practice. A "vanity plug" was not the intention, please remember to assume good faith. My own project (no longer linked) is strictly non-commercial and available free to the community. There are and have been commercial physical versions of the Star Game available for sale by others I have no affiliation with, which does demonstrate some form of notability. See http://mvimaedivm.wix.com/ryananschauung#!star-game-gallery Mequa (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I now think it doesn't meet the criteria for notability, so should be deleted, with some of the information about it being added, with the references, to the ONA - not the Myatt - Wikipedia article, an addition I plan to do, with some new info, in advance of the expected deletion, taking down the 'see also' link there. As for my 'vanity plug' comment, perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but that's how the first appearance of the article came across, and apparently not only to me, as the COI tag seemed to indicate. Perhaps the star game article can be restored if at some time someone writes about it 'in detail' in a mainstream publication, or if the virtual star game gets such a write up - both would make a good addition to the reputable literature about the ONA. Pavane7 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how adding any info about this game to the ONA article improves the ONA article or makes it more informative. Maybe if all you added was equivalent to what the Kaplan/Bjorgo article says on the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Star Game is an important part of the ONA, as can be confirmed via multiple sources, so I feel a mention on the ONA article would be relevant. I also think this current article, current URL at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Game, if it must be removed, should ideally be converted to a redirect to a relevant section of the ONA article. One reason being that this page has been independently cited on various occult forums already (Luciferian Research Society being one), so people are clearly searching for The Star Game on Wikipedia. I agree though that detailed description of the game's rules would be best served via a reference (e.g. NAOS, already cited) rather than on the ONA article itself, so the information on the current page would be better off abridged as necessary before moving to a section on the ONA article. Mequa (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already updated the Wikipedia ONA article to include the star game, and a redirect to the ONA article might be a good idea. A revised & slightly enlarged version of the Wikipedia star game article is now available here - http://lapisphilosophicus.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/overview-of-the-star-game/ Pavane7 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)