Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (4th nomination)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. While these "games" might seem to offend the strictest reading of WP:NOT, they have a long tradition within the encyclopedia. If they garner substantial community support, appear to provide relief and motivation for established contributors, and do not contradict encyclopedic goals, then the community has the discretion to permit them (under WP:IAR, if nothing else.) In this case, it is apparent that no consensus exists within the community to delete this page. There may come a time when the community's values shift, of course, so occasional renomination of these pages is not a bad idea. Xoloz 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox/Word Association
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a social network. Play games somewhere else. Sean William @ 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Included in this nomination are all subpages of said page. Sean William @ 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a social network? So is that why I was recently invited to a Wikipedia meetup?  I really don't think, in an encyclopedia whose basic premise is that Everyman can edit it, you can avoid having a little bit of social networking creep in.  The existence of things like Word Association make Wikipedia far less intimidating to new users/editors.  I can understand the points below that some people may stay here to have fun and not contribute to the encyclopedia, but really, so what?  I bet there are thousands upon thousands of people who merely read Wikipedia articles and never contribute a single edit, not understanding the concept that they can edit it.  Should we then prevent people from reading the encyclopedia if they don't contribute to it?  -- Tckma 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't those two completely different things? We write the encyclopedia for people to read it. We open it to everyone at the same time. This, however, shouldn't mean that any activity that some group finds enjoyable should be hosted on the site simply because it relates indirectly to the encyclopedia. This is a general comment; Wikipedia should not allow any kind of activity hosting simply because users feel its fun and it contains wikilinks.  Leebo  T / C  19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, we seriously don't need this. It's too reminiscent of Esperanza's games. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. --Core desat 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coredesat. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per nom. Ral315 » 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, prior MFD's
 * Articles for deletion/Sandbox/Word Association
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (2nd nomination)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (3rd nomination)
 * —  xaosflux  Talk 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think you're interperting what wikipedia is not a little too harshly. What wikipedia is, is a vast network of volunteers, many of which are new and are floundering around looking for a place to start learning how this place works. Even if it is just a game, it still teaches new users how to make links and do searches, while simultaneously introducing them to articles that they otherwise would never come across. It's really no different from hitting the random article button. The main goal of wikipedia, as I see it, is to encourage users to create new articles and improve existing ones. If even one user finds an article that inspires them and that they improve from playing this game, then the means to that end is justified. However, if they are encouraged to "play games somewhere else" then they aren't here looking at articles and getting ideas, they're just siting back down in front of their X-Box, doing wikipedia no good at all. Ci ndy Bo talk  06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that's what the Help namespace is for. This isn't much better than any of Esperanza's games, and there are people who are here just to play these games and not contribute to the encyclopedia. The Sandbox is for edit tests, not games. --Core desat 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As thorough as it is, I think some new users find WP:HELP intimidating as is proven by the perpetual repetitions of frequently asked questions at the Help Desk. Surely anything that can help a new user gain experience and expose them to new articles is worthwhile having, especially if it's just in a sandbox. However, I'll admit that I see no need to archive old games. BTW who was Esperanza? Ci ndy Bo talk  08:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Esperanza was an attempt at a community-within-the-community that ultimately failed for a number of reasons that can be seen in the discussions that led to its conclusion.  Leebo  T / C  10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's keep in mind that users who are playing this game to learn how to contribute might start playing it to have fun, and then the whole point of their being taught how to edit (and then contributing) is void. We have programs like Adopt-a-User and the Welcoming Committee for intimidated newcomers to make sure they aren't bitten by others. Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site.  Leebo  T / C  09:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Are you for real? Is it THAT offensive to you that there are people having a little fun on here, that you need to nominate this for deletion a FOURTH time? This game has been kept three times prior to this. That should be a good enough reason to keep it this time, since you're only going to get the same arguments this time too. It's a way to learn how to edit, it's a way to find articles you may not have otherwise read, and last I checked, we still don't get paid to contribute to this, so the fact that people are having a little fun shouldn't be so horrifying to you. You think this is a job or something? Fine. Consider WA a breakroom.Underorbit 11:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this subpage is a breakroom, then you're spending way too much time in it. Sean William @ 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's creepy.Underorbit 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It's in the Sandbox, it's not like it's an actual article or anything. What is the big deal?  If it leads people to look at and edit articles, then why not?  Yes, I spend a lot of time here, but if you look at my edit history I do indeed contribute to the encyclopedia itself.  -- Tckma 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not what the Sandbox is for. --Core desat 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a waste of space, time and energy.  Majorly  (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Waste of time and resources. Nick 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Harmful and useless. Breaks multiple sections of WP:NOT.--WaltCip 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It's a great way to stumble across articles that you'd never normally enounter. Knaw 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, other than "I like it" and "It's useful", have you got a reason to keep this page? Sean William @ 17:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing that counteracts policy. Therefore the vote must be struck.--WaltCip 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I spend some time on Word Association, but almost everytime I'm here, I wind up going to some article I haven't seen before and I almost always find at least some grammar or spelling to correct.  If it wasn't for the game, I would never have gone to these articles.  You can look at my user history if you want, but I rarely log in unless I have to.Squad51 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, other than "I like it" and "It's useful", have you got a reason to keep this page? Sean William @ 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia space. "I like it" and "It's useful" are sufficient.  Else why do we allow a billion contradictory essays?--ragesoss 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also that Miscellany for Deletion is not listed in the introduction to the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" essay. This is by design.  "I like it" and "It's useful" are pretty much the only reason by about 1/2 of the Wikipedia namespace exists (and the whole Portal namespace), and there's nothing wrong with that.--ragesoss 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the WP project does have elements of social networking; most work does. This is not beyond the appropriately very small and inconspicuous amount.DGG (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a novel way to grow interest in the encyclopedia, and works better than the "random article" button at finding articles that are actually substantial. Like others, I've edited a lot of articles I stumbled across through this page.  &mdash;Kymacpherson 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep established editors having fun with the encyclopedia is good, and thus has survived previous MfDs. -N 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a new way to look at online enclyclopedias; this shows the creators have a sense of humor and it will therefore draw in new readers. Batsofdoom 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this seems like another unnecessary sandbox subpage. I agree with the above reasonings to delete. Acalamari 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep rationales ignore the WP:NOT problem. If this were not in a sandbox, it would already be deleted, since it wouldn't fit in Wikipedia space or user space as an interactive game. It's hidden in a walled garden in the sandbox instead, but it's not appropriate there since the sandbox is for temporary testing, not permanent pages. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 14 July 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.