Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox/Hangman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep, but a move to Hangman may be in order. -- BD2412 talk 02:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox/Hangman
This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. See the precedent - Votes for deletion/Chess championship, which was kept. It's a reasonable community-building activity. "Free chess online" doesn't suit for one, the activity in question isn't chess, and secondly, it would defeat the whole point of community building. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Keep and Move to Wikipedia:Hangman- The last three games have been quite fun and have worked rather well. I do offer to move the page out of the Sandbox. I don't know why it was put there in the first place. -Hoekenheef 4 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
 * The games section does absolutely no harm to the site. Statements that, "they make the site run slower and use bandwith" are full of it. Yes, every page takes some bandwith, but Wikipedia has about one new page every minute or two. So if you are going to claim that the pages make the site slower etc., then you need to realize that in making that statement you are also basically saying "Oh, let's remove the option to start new pages because they slow the site down and take up bandwith." Open your eyes, the site is growing, but does anyone ever make a large complaint about the site slowing down. Seven pages have been created since I began typing this, but I find no difference in the site speed, even on dial-up. So stop fooling yourselves. The games do not harm the project in any way. They are there for the benefit of the users who choose to use them. If you don't want to use them then don't, that's fine with me, but don't ruin other people's good times just because you don't see how it benefits you. Maybe it benefits them and allows a break from the pain it sometimes is to contribute and edit Wikipedia. -Hoekenheef 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most of the problem here is that this game is located in the sandbox. Now as the current runner of the I geuss it is my responsiblity to defend it as best as possible. I don't know why the page was put in the sandbox. That is a question for Ashley Y. I am also not trying to shove off responsiblity. Now I have offered to move the page out of the sandbox, but it seems as if you people don't even read through these disscussions before voting. I strongly urge you to do that. -Hoekenheef 8 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
 * This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
 * Move & Projectfy at Department of fun, unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
 * Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, WP:NOT a gameserver. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
 * Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)


 * Keep - not a valid criterion for deletion. Whether or not fun and games belong on Wikipedia is a policy issue, not a VfD issue.  A good argument was made on the mailing list, but the mailing list has no official status and that discussion was not brought up here. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
 * K _ _ _. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
 * Move or delete. Sandbox should only hold the sandbox. "Test projects" should be in userspace, their own Wikipedia: page or subpage of a parent project. IMHO. zoney &#09827; talk 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikigames has been redirected to What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. And if we keep this one, what would be the argument against offering every other sort of game here? carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
 * No, because there aren't any other sites for recreational activities modeled for the en: Wikipedia community, and where the editors can thus gather to commune. -- Natalinasmpf 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep why can't we have some fun isn't that what the wikifun is for. Enough said. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keepwiki fun? what are you, a stress enforcer? Its the sandbox for god sakes, why dont you ban people from using the sandbox and then they can vandalize some other pages.--Zxcvbnm 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
 * X-Treme (Extremely) strong keep. Entertaining, community building. Shows how the Wiki can be used for other ways besides being an encyclopedia. -ShadowMan1od 9 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
 * STRONGEST KEEP EVAR!!11. If this is deleted, I will seriously leave Wikipedia in disgust for it should not be taken so seriously. Hangman is not interfering with bandwidth or server space any more than a giant userpage, and obviously we're not going to put a zillion games on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a game server. We just want a place to hang out and have fun. Internets = fun. Internets =/= serious business. Purplefeltangel 9 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to decide that we want a maximum of x games on Wikipedia, and then we can all vote on which games we will keep. But we can't keep on adding them; I agree with Raul, and I follow Eloquence's arguments on the mailing list. Until then, delete. Enochlau 15:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhaps only one game at a time, where we vote on who runs the next game. --Quadraxis
 * Keep but move. I agree with having a few games under their own project.  They may not be encyclopedic but they do contribute to the goal of Wikipedia.  Also, this should be discussed elsewhere before condemning games or the dept. of fun in general.  --NormalAsylum (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, the sandbox is for editing tests; this provides a way to test formatting, etc. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 21:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.