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, Default Keep-but . The time wasted on this MFD far exceeded any issues with the page. Userpages are given signifigant leeway when maintained by productive editors. This page has been marked as inactive. If a new "game" is to be placed here focus should be placed on one that directly benefits readers or editors in a manner directly related to the encylopedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons listed at the coffee lounge games deletion, the reasons I listed at the MFD below for Sandbox games, unencyclopedic, detracts from what Wikipedians should really be doing. If there are any related pages I am unaware of then they are nominated as well. DoomsDay349 02:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-This game takes approximately 2 minutes of one's time. It does not hinder a Wikipedian's ability to edit. Also, by the time this MfD is over, the List of the Legendary would be filled, and the game will be over!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? He'll probably just create a useless archive and start the game again. Again, blatant violation of WP:NOT. DoomsDay349 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So very useless; there's no way in which this promotes encyclopedia building- or even community building, for that matter. -- Kicking222 04:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -What Ed said. —KingIvan^{PWN3D! at the disco} 04:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This test Wikipedians computer skills at finding something specific that they need. If i ever were to make another game it would only have the purpose to train and/or test one's skill in being able to do certain tasks with their computer that will inturn help make Wikipedia better. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, let's note that Ed and Ivan Kricancic came in at numbers three and four respectively on the game's "List of the Legendary." Now, to move on to policy: WP:USER, on the list of things one cannot have on one's userpage, can be found (emphasis is mine): Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. Ed, the fact that the game takes "only" two minutes of an editor's time has nothing to do with this debate. This debate is based on policy, and nowhere do I see a policy that says "if something takes two minutes or less of an editor's time, it's OK." Reading an article about a non-notable person takes two minutes. Why, I see no evidence that this game increases an editor's ability to effectively edit Wikipedia articles. Yes, the participants can find a statement on your user page - what does that have to do with wikifying, policy, learning to edit (you even tell the participants NOT to press the edit button!), deciphering page histories, or citing sources. Srose (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not argue that Why's Mystery game "increases an editor's ability of effectively edit Wikipedia articles." I stated that "It does not hinder a Wikipedian's ability to edit." These two statements have different meanings. IMHO this game has no overall effect on the rest of the encyclopedia. I still participated in this game without any major change in my editing patterns (except for participating in this MfD debate, of course).--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment ("Why, I see no evidence that this game increases an editor's ability to effectively edit Wikipedia articles") was directed to Why1991 (who claimed that the game helps to build editorial skills), as you may be able to discern from the opening word. There is no policy to support keeping this game, while there are numerous policies (including WP:USER and WP:NOT which support deleting it. Srose (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per WP:USER: The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant ... Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia ... If user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. I challenge the nominator to say why this page is disruptive. Yuser31415 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be particularly disruptive, but it's not helpful on the other side. I challenge you to prove to me how this helps us to build the encyclopedia. "Look at me! I learned how to press control+F! Thank God we have a game to teach us this!". That's the only thing we can learn from this. DoomsDay349 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have to prove to you this helps build the encyclopedia. Instead, I can simply prove that it builds the community: several experienced editors have tried the game, and from their comments enjoyed it. Since when was enjoying something not considered community building, or vice versa? In the interests of not turning this discussion into a flame war, I would prefer if you did not argue with everyone who votes keep or delete. I learnt this the hard way. Cheers, Yuser31415 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In summary, then, I'm not allowed to argue my position. Yes, that makes sense. I just don't believe games and Wikipedia are meant to be together. This is not a site to play around; we're trying to build an encyclopedia, and this kind of thing makes Wikipedia lose its credibility. DoomsDay349 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Jimbo Wales, "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing."--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine then. Let's just let the debate play out and stop the arguing. DoomsDay349 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suits me. Yuser31415 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the point is...what, exactly? WP:NOT a place for social networking nor a free webhost for games. Also bad for the image thing, incidentally. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- there's nothing wrong with a harmless bit of fun. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! User:Sp3000 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay! The game has finished, removing the need to delete it.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please Sp3000 realize that wikipedia is not about fun and games and whatnot, we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Please keep in mind of that, also delete on the grounds of WP:NOT. — Arjun 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed: ok, the game is over, why have a useless archive? And indeed, Arjun; WP:NOT and WP:USER explicitly forbid social networking. We are here to write and encyclopedia, not play games. If that's a problem, well my advice- and take no offense- is to leave. DoomsDay349 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If games aren't aloud on Wikipedia than what good does it do to have the Are you a Wikipediholic Test on here. I will keep that list up there but discontinue the game and come up with a new one that has more of a "purpose" in helping create links throughout Wikipedia and improves ones knowledge of Wikipedia. As stated above one of the best quotes that JimBo stated "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What good does it have indeed? I'd nom it for MFD if I wasn't aware of the fact that it would never achieve consensus. This debate should still continue to delete a useless page, or at best pu t it under historical, which I still do not think is worth it. If you create another game be sure I will have it nommed here; social networking is not allowed. To clarify and before some smart-ass comes and corrects me on it, social networking is social interaction without an encyclopedic purpose. Which this game is. DoomsDay349 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think the only reason the Wikipediholic test is kept is because it does expand some knowledge of Wikipedia, and some people want to make the list and so edit more and become more obsessed with Wikipedia. But I digress. Why1991, why don't you just work on improving Wikipedia's articles, rather than try to come up with another game? Srose (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -Keep-This game, while it doesn't support the expansion of Wikipedia, has no negative effects, and no reason to be deleted. For example, a real life item is known as flowers. Flowers are often considered useless, only for show, but do we, in terms, "put them up for deletion"? No, we keep them. Just because something isn't a benefactor doesn't mean it's bad. And, according to the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", so long as it doesn't interfere with realistic laws. Thereby, since Why1991's game is uninterfering with Wikipedian law, should be allowed to exist. Oh, and by the way, don't try the whole "I'm on the legendary list" thing, I only played this game because Why1991 told me to. Happy New Year!FF7Freakzorz 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has its own laws, and US laws are taken into context only when Wikipedia law does not impose a stricter one. Wikipedia does have the right to abridge freedom of speech because its a serious encyclopedia with certain standards. Your flower argument is entirely incorrect, as flowers do serve the purpose of allowing bees to thrive and are also food for several species. And the principle hardly applies. My point is, we do not need this game, so get rid of it. DoomsDay349 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- If this is deleted per the reasons above, why was there a WP:DoF or Wikifun in the first place? I don't see any of those pages up for deletion. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! User:Sp3000 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to see them deleted, but they'd never achieve consensus. DoomsDay349 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, there's no proof that this is distracting other Wikipedians. This "game" takes only a few minutes/seconds. It also makes Wikipedians feel proud of their "achievements" and meet a few other Wikifriends. Like Word Associations (which has been put up for deletion twice already and now a third time), it is sort of like Why's sandbox. Nobody ever said that you had to enter, it's purely optional. If you do not wish to participate, then don't. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! User:Sp3000 05:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't get the point across enough. Please, please read WP:NOT and WP:USER. They forbid social networking and game in userspace. I can't stress it enough. DoomsDay349 05:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I get your point. Now, would it be alright if Why could change the game slightly to make it more eductional and encyclopedic? 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Bearing in mind that it's not solely my decision, I'd have to look at it and decide it then. But this particular game should go. DoomsDay349 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that this idea ("let Why1991 create a new game!") is kind of...well, bad. Why shouldn't Why1991 spend his (her?) time editing Wikipedia articles, reverting vandalism, participating in XFDs, and even contributing to policy? In my opinion, Why1991 should forget the games altogether and focus on editing encyclopedic content. In terms of the consensus of this debate, this is beside the point, of course. Srose (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Take your games somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, and while the rule of thumb is generally tolerant this goes beyond a few friendly comments on usertalk pages. Co-workers exchanging a few words at the coffee machine or water cooler is one thing; if they want to get together for Texas Holdem they need to do it on their own time, in their own houses. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for what is possibly the best comparison I've seen thus far. I'll remember that particular card to pull out. Good arguments. DoomsDay349 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the reference to Texas Hold 'Em, you fail to consider that this game takes, as mentioned above, two minutes. That is a quick chat at the water cooler. And as for the comment on not needing this game, featured in response to my earlier comment, we don't need userpages, so if this gets deleted, maybe I should put some userpages up for deletion. After all, we don't NEED them. You also stated, "Look at me! I learned how to press control+F! Thank God we have a game to teach us this!". While this is minor, I actually LEARNED THIS from playing the game. Therefor, it will help me search for specific words in an article, which in turn helps me find important points to edit, proving that this game has had some use. Last but not least, WP:User directly states that you should not have "Games...pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'". However, while this game is FUNNY, it is not directly ENTERTAINMENT. It is a simple matter of finding a sentence. Happy New Year!FF7Freakzorz 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:NOT and WP:USER. The fact that this game does not take much time to play is completely irrelevant. Srose (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For me to say a userpage should be deleted, you're going to have to show that it's actively harming Wikipedia, and this isn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what appears the gazzilionth time, it's a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. WP:NOT and WP:USER forbid social networking and GAMES IN USERSPACE. If you find that a problem, then change the policy, but the fact is they violate policy and I cannot understand how you can question that. DoomsDay349 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really care that it technically does violate policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure IAR applies. If correct, that was a point brought up in the Esperanza MFD, but the basis was shot down. I will review this and get back to you. DoomsDay349 23:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still trying to figure it out, and I might add that the flamboyant style of your answer may be construed as incivility. DoomsDay349 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In projectspace, I don't think it does apply to nearly the level it does in userspace. Obviously userspace is more liberal than other namespaces, or userbox migration wouldn't work. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • • I've contacted someone to clarify. I dunno when they'll get to it. DoomsDay349 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I got the following quote from the userpage: This is a competition I am hosting. Um, no, WMF is hosting it, and Wikipedia is not free webhosting. I understand the importance of developing community, but it seems somewhat silly to use our space and bandwidth for games. alphachimp. 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that in an apparent last ditch effort Why has changed his wording from "a competition I am hosting". DoomsDay349 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You will KEEP this, plc., as an archive, perhaps; there is no real harm in this game. In some cases, Wikipedians actually learnt how to use CTRL+F, and in my case, I learnt how to use Navigation Popups. This game has helped Wikipedians learn a little more on word-finding skills. Because it has helped them, I see no reason for it to be deleted. If it was archived, I will agree wholeheartedly to it. In any case, the game is over, so there shouldn't really be so much fuss about it. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add that the time you Wikipedians spend here is more time spent on playing Why1991's Mystery Game. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we are here in an attempt to make encyclopedic cleanup, not play games. Your edit summary was quite offensive, I might add. "Doughbags" is an obvious mispelling of the word we all know you meant. Your reasoning blatantly ignores policies set down by WP:NOT and WP:USER, which I suggest you read. Please be aware of the issues before voting. DoomsDay349 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sir, I am piqued that over such a small issue, someone had to make a fuss over it. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing...WP:IAR. That may not look like it applies here, but since the game helps others improve and maintain Wikipedia, while the rules prevent the game to serve its purpose...you get the idea. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "sir", I generally get a bit "piqued" when someone calls me a douchebag. And there is no conclusive proof that this game helps user edit Wikipedia. Your argument is not the intent of WP:IAR. DoomsDay349 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So...those two words are the same...I apologize then, you're not a douchebag. No one here is. Sorry about that. However, I say that this game helps Wikipedians as it teaches them how to look for words they may otherwise take ages to find. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive me, but how is that helping our encyclopedia? alphachimp. 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, let's just say that you're editing a very long article. You might think that CTRL+F is useless since you can edit one specific section, but what happens if you submit your changes, but cannot connect to the server? What then? In such a case, should you refresh the page, Wikipedia takes it that you're editing the whole article, not just one section. However, if you know how to use CTRL+F, you can simply copy the name of the section from the Table of Contents, paste it in the dialog box that comes up with CTRL+F, and you'll arrive at the section again. Do you see my point? CTRL+F is useful for checking your edits if the server encounters a problem. Most of the time, they should be sent to the server, but in a number of cases, that doesn't happen at all. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I must agree with A. Exeunt. In an edit made before, Jimbo Wales stated, "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me [him] a good thing"--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Completely harmless --Fir0002 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not community building, as there is little interaction. Doesn't help Wikipedia out in the long run. --MECU≈talk 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless, don't see any good reason to delete. Terence Ong 08:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - well intended, but we must consider:

“

...games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project...

”

- Wikipedia:What can I not have on my user page?

Therefore, I have to vote delete. Cheers and regards, Anthonycfc (talk • tools) 18:23, Friday December 29 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Wikipedia is not a game host. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, not hurting the project. --- RockMFR 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why delete it? It's not harming anyone. --ASDFGHJKL 15:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also not helping anyone. Neither of the previous two statements provide any real reason to keep the game. Srose (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- It's useless and doesn't benefit Wikipedia--SUIT 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Conditional Delete Think about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people edit at their potential when people are happy. Sure Wikipedia is not a game host and is not MySpace, but a little bit of fun and games will make editors more happy which in turn makes editors more happy which means more good-quality edits. The editors in Wikipedia are not robots (exceptions for bots) and a little bit of fun won't hurt an encyclopedia. We should probably keep this page. However, if the people get out of the control with the gaming/fun and people are abusing Wikipedia as a game site then we should delete any page that has to do with Wikipedia-related games.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Please don't make arguments saying, "it doesn't harm anything." It doesn't help anything either. Every single article deleted (except attack pages maybe) didn't do any "harm" but they were still deleted for strong reasons. I don't get why people are trying to explain that the game helped them with using CTRL+F. If you don't know what CTRL+F means, then you most likely won't use it. You don't learn anything in it. Games don't belong on Wikipedia. If you want to play a game go to the thousands of places elsewhere. Play Everquest if you want community bonding. Not Wikipedia.++aviper2k7++ 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep harmless fun. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So is having RPGs on Wikipedia. I guess an article on myslelf is harmless also. What is harmful on Wikipedia?++aviper2k7++ 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's his page, why not let him keep it. Users have pages for their userboxes, their personal things, they have sandboxes, and we all know that the sandboxes aren't being used for Encyclopedic purposes. Why not let him keep this game? -Yancyfry 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't hurt...doesn't help...so what DOES it do? ST47Talk 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – WP:NOT has a section entitled What your user page is not that leads to Wikipedia:User page. Under the section, What can I not have on my user page?, WP:USER permits games pertaining to "writing an encyclopedia." The Mystery Game taught use of ‘’’Control-F Find,’’’ a skill that is part of writing an encyclopedia and which is on the Computer Shortcuts Template:

((computer_shortcuts))

Using computer shortcuts functions has appeared in at least three Tips of the day - Change page size, screenshots, andHow to enable the Enhance recent changes setting - and teaching use of Control-F Find appears to be an extension of this Tip-of-the-Day line. The game involves people who are active participants in the Wikipedia project and I did not see self-promotion of user Why1991 as part of the game, each of which are issues of WP:NOT. Since the MfD page(s)/subject meet the game requirements of WP:NOT and is not in violation of any other AfD/MfD criteria, I believe Keep is the appropriate course of action. -- Jreferee 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this game teach users to use ctrl+f when it never says how to use or what ctrl+f is in the first place?++aviper2k7++ 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A review of all the posts related to the Mystery Game illustrates that the game teaches use of Control-F Find. Since the Mystery Game survives other MfD reasons, the issue here is whether the Mystery Game is a game pertaining to writing an encyclopedia - which is allowed per WP:USER. A significant part of writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia involves finding something specific that the editor needs. Another part of writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia involves knowing the possibilities for user pages. The Mystery Game combined these and other elements pertaining to writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia. You and I might not come to an agreement on what the game may teach or what others may learn from the game, but the Mystery Game is a game pertaining to writing an encyclopedia which is allowed per WP:USER. Even after reviewing the above posts again (and the below post), I do not see a valid reason under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy to delete the item(s) requested to be deleted. -- Jreferee 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - My god, the inclusionism! WP:USER, already over, isn't useful, not webspace. This sort of thing is part of the reason Esperanza was killed with fire. Ctrl-F is in a lot of places in your browser, and I suspect only an excuse to justify this 'game' under WP:USER. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to keep voters - WP:ILIKEIT#It doesn't do any harm --Wooty Woot? contribs 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an essay, not a guideline or policy--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't mean users should blatantly ignore it.++aviper2k7++ 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.