Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (Radiant) 12:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association[edit]

Violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming website. Move off site, but not to user space. Distracts users from encyclopedia too. Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following should probably be deleted if this is:

Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more related subpages that should be included:

—Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's already been nominated once, and rejected. There is no problem with Chess or Go. It's in the sandbox so it isn't going to distract new users. It helps relieve Wikistress. Xhin 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no evidence that this distracts from the encyclopaedia. I often find articles that need improvement throgh the game - e.g. my recent major edits to Arabian Desert, and other articles are created through the game, e.g. Ceremonial weapon. Its in the sandbox, which itself is inside project space so its not going to get anyone confused. Thryduulf 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above arguments. Please also see previous unsuccessful bad faith deletion nomination. Phileas 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See above arguments. Also note that this game encourages players to read linked articles. This isn't a condo board meeting. Don't be that guy. Underorbit 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above comments. I have found myself wandering about in Wiki due to this page -- clicking on the links and learning more and more. Mugsiam 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect - As above. You'll never get this article deleted, since there are already thousands and thousands of WikiPedians who view, contribute, and otherwise play. Remember, it's in the SANDBOX.--WaltCip 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it helps me and probably many other people to link between articles and find out something new. One purpose of an encyclopaedia is to store information and this helps people find things. Simply south 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above - <3 word assoc.// hackmiester (contact) 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether it distracts from the encyclopedia or not, we don't need it – Gurch 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Wikipedia is a damn encyclopedia, not a playground. Ral315 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreamly strong Keep, wikipedians need a place for fun and the sandbox provides such a place that does not affect the integrity on wikipedia articles. Many users regually take part in the sandbox and removing a relaxing place will only make users feel represed in a stuffy environment. Think outside the box 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's not harming anyone, it helps new users to build tables (after all what else is the sandbox for?) and articles have been improved and/or created through being listed on here. -- Roleplayer 09:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD shouldn't even be here. WP:NOT does not prove that this website should not exist. The citation that "WikiPedia is not a gaming website" is not included in this database. Ral315: By that logic, we should delete the sandbox. Gurch: By that logic, we should delete 90% of all other articles. "We" is a weasel word. Consider using "I" instead. YOU don't need it. Some other people DO.--WaltCip 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the sandbox has important uses (helping newbies, testing wikisyntax, etc.) Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fun, and it's in the sandbox. It's a good way to explore Wikipedia and learn tables and links - perhaps it should be better promoted to newbies? Natgoo 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sandbox is so people can test editing without mesing wth articles, not so people can create games to play. This is an encyclopedia, not yahoo games. Cnriaczoy42 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your complaints are still unfounded. As I have said before, it does not violate WP:NOT. And, as someone has said before, "It's the bloody Sandbox!" Bad faith nomination. Note, currently 10 keep, 4 delete. I doubt that, unless someone pulled out a huge meatpuppet act, this article will get deleted anyway. Word Association is also part of a project, so you'll face HUGE opposition once they get word of this AfD. Beyond WikiPedia, sandbox is free ground.--WaltCip 14:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What project is this a part of? I just was at the page and their was NOTHING that mentoined a project at the top of the article or at the bottom under categories. Please tell me where this is so i can get a new glasses prescription. Cnriaczoy42 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Open the WP:SAND page, and observe the rightmost box on the screen. There is a section that says "Sandbox Projects." This, Dead End, and Poetry are among them.--WaltCip 20:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep there's ever been: Pretty much a jumbo-pack of the keeps above. We need to have some fun around here. It's only a few articles. No harm done. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Mark J 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above arguments. No harm, no foul, no worries. --Irish Hog 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Ultra Extreme Rockin' Jockin' sockin' fockin' Keep on Wheels! FireSpike 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the best pages to learn about new stuff due to the links. Robin Chen 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This project is a lot of fun and has many active users posting.idjit 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can learn (and edit) a lot from the wikilinks used in Word Association. Uncke Herb 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , from a very strong and virulent deletionist who is rabidly hateful towards most things of this nature. This particular entry promotes ARTICLE CREATION AND EDITING. It encourages people to wander around. It teaches newbies. And it's not freaking Checkers. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my statements on similar game pages. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia project. The earlier deletion nom was a speedy keep because it was a bad-faith nomination; that doesn't apply here. Whether it distracts from the encyclopedia or not isn't relevant. Wikipedia is not addictinggames.com. It's a sandbox, not a playground: this project space is set up for experimenting with Wikicode. If you're seeking entertainment, there are plenty of other places on the internet to go. JDoorjam Talk 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love this game and it should be kept because it is one of the main parts of wikipedians everywhere. Baseracer 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a demonstration of wiki editing, but delete the archives. -- Ned Scott 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Works better than the 'random article' link as a portal to miscellaneous pages since (1) pages chosen by a user are typically more material and better quality than a completely random page, and (2) the association provides some context with each link. —Kymacpherson 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interrogative Comment- Long time wikipedia reader, first time poster (ever, right here!) I found this a useful resource while learning how to contribute and building up courage to do so in a 'backstage' area. So I agree that it's a functional adjunct resource of wikipedia itself, not a mere game. Thus, it arguably belongs in the sandbox, as a sort of tutorial exercise, no? Perhaps the dispute could be settled by creating a separate project for 'games' such as these, i.e. ones not purely for entertainment, but rather for developing rudimentary or advanced familiarity with wikipedia (and fostering community?). The project could be linked in, exactly where this is, but not officially part of wikipedia, since that seems to be the essence of the objection, i.e. concerns about needing to preserve 'officialness' status of content. Maybe a bit like words in wikipedia that link to definitions in wiktionary. But then again, that adjunct 'playspace' is the sandbox, no? To experiment for the purposes of learning is a type of play, or game. The objection seems thorny because it questions the intent of the players: it assumes the play is mere entertainment, while the players argue, rather, that it's experimental learning about wikipedia, which is what the sandbox is for. bntrpy 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once we start restricting the sandbox, the good intentions of WikiPedia become VERY blurred.--WaltCip 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete archived games beyond the most recent. Keep any word association game currently in progress per the above arguments. This game has lead me to learn new things by clicking on links... I'll see a word association and say to myself "Gee, what is that?" I've also corrected some articles linked from this game (mostly grammatical nit-picks, but a few content edits here and there as well). I'm not sure what value it is to keep old games, however, so I would suggest only keeping the last game completed (so people can see how it turned out). -- Tckma 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the fact that it's under Sandbox/. Who the hell cares? This is ridiculous. --JStalk 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per everyone else. The sandbox is as much about sillyness as it is about testing wikicode. Wikipedia needs a little sillyness now and then. --Transfinite 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it provides a fun way for Wikipedians to practice linking and find pages to edit that they never knew existed. --Gray PorpoiseWhat have I done‽ 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is fun not allowed on Wikipedia? It is in the sandbox, and there are a lot of interesting articles I've read from it. —The Great Llama talk 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete the older archives. It's fun, and it's a good way for new users to practice making tables and for anyone to find interesting articles. --Wikiwøw ­­ 01:32, 13 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word_Association_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1145630626"