Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (3rd 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 Varied. Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association has been kept. The "Archive" of old games have been deleted. anthonycfc [talk 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Most of the archive pages had not been deleted. They are deleted now. The following is the list of pages deleted: —Doug Bell talk 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages kept:

Pages deleted by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

Pages deleted by Doug Bell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association[edit]

There was a vaguely valid reason to keep this last time this was nominated, in that people would read the links made and learn more about the encyclopedia. However, the situation is now ridiculous, this game has spawned 14 archives (who the hell looks at those?) and eighteen variant games. There is far too much effort going into this and it needs to go. Light hearted games are all very well but this is too far. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly off topic but should this be a contents page for the number of noms? 147.197.215.16 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective delete the archives and the spinoff games - the current main game is fine as are the associated player list and userboxes. Koweja 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This has been brought up before.Squad51 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the GNAA was nominated 18 times before it was deleted. What's your point? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations should not be determined on the precedence of unlike subjects.--WaltCip 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just basing it on the fact it's been nominated for deletion and been kept several times already. I would go for deleting the archives, though I think it would be a good idea to keep the previous game (only) since someone who had played it might like to see how it turned out.Squad51 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all the other noms. But get rid of the archives and the variants that are no longer being played, such as Sliding Doors and Enigmatic. Phileas 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't do any harm and is fun. FireSpike 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Games pertaining to writing an encyclopedia directed towards people who are active participants in the project are permitted on user pages (see WP:UP#Games). Games probably are allowed on sandbox subpages by analogy. The noted game "Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association" is "a good place to practice making links to articles and find interesting pages to edit on Wikipedia," so it does pertain to writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia. As for the archives and the variants, you needed to specifically list what you want deleted. Since no archives and variants were listed in this nomination, they cannot be deleted by this nomination. Please place a Category:Wikipedia games on each. Then, go through Category:Wikipedia games and nominate for deletion those games that pertain to entertainment rather than to writing an encyclopedia. If you reason for deletion is redundancy, then use that in a separate nomination to better highlight your issues. To get rid of the excess, you can also propose to merge redundant games into one main game. You also might want to review Category:Wikipedia Word Association. -- Jreferee 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per above. I just started this game, man, don't delete it so soon! --Umalee 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete archives; they serve no useful purpose. —Psychonaut 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not going to filibuster the "harmless" argument, which is practically the worst argument that can be made since hamrlessness does not go hand in hand with usefulness. I will say that this is useful. The sandbox, which it is located in, is an area designed to help new users by giving them experimental usage of WP's editing tools. Sandbox goes further to help users even more by introducing them to the "linking" system of WP, as well as serving as a repertoire of random articles. Contrary to mainstream belief, the Word Association game is not a social network. Very little social networking goes on, and if it does happen, it occurs in the form of discussion on the talk page as it should.--WaltCip 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep games but delete archives. Perhaps trim down the variant games as well. The games are harmless and introduce people to Wikilinking (and creating some pretty compliacted tables by the look of it). They also lead to people finding articles they would not otherwise visit. I used to play and often found random articles that were in need of a little copyediting and sorted them, so I think it does have some positive spill-off into the mainspace. WjBscribe 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Delete the archives if you must, delete the variants, but WA serves a good purpose — getting people to think creatively about the encyclopedia. Also, why must WA constantly be under nomination for deletion? Why can't we just make a decision and have it stand more than a few months. That I find ridiculous. —Mproud 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete the archives and the variant games. Word Association, besides being fun, has brought to me many Wikipedia articles I would otherwise not read. bCube(talk,contribs); 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete the archives if you're so hell bent on it. Seriously dude, get over it! Go find a hobby besides raining on parades. The game was kept because it deserved to be kept the last 14098709876 times you nominated it for deletion, and it deserves to be kept now. And yeah, I'm getting hostile now. F'ing knock it off. Underorbit 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be a jackass and have some respect for your fellow Wikipedians. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I'm sorry. But I'm also sick of seeing this being nominated for deletion over and over again - it's simply mean spirited. I still think this is ridiculous, but pardon me for losing it for a second there. Underorbit 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having never nominated Word Association before for deletion, I suggest you check your facts before being incivil. It only makes you look stupid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being a jerk, but I still stand by my assertions that this is ridiculous. Underorbit 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness to Underorbit, the previous deletion notices on the Talk page are incorrect - they all point to this discussion, so it is quite easily to mistakenly think that it was Dev who nominated the pages before. Koweja 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Archives and variants, keep original if people still want it. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think all the archives accept for the last game should be deleted, but the game itself should be left alone. Drummerlad 3:22, 16 March 2007
  • Strong Keep -- What is wrong with Wikipedians nowadays? Can't people have a little fun? ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The premise is that people shouldn't bring play into their work.--WaltCip 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't compare oranges to apples. Wikipedia is not a job, it is a place where people get to spend time contributing to this encyclopedia. You do not get any pay, unlike an ACTUAL job. People need a little fun time, to, for example, reduce their Wikistress level. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need to keep a permanent record of this stuff. It's supposed to be a sandbox. --Folantin 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association; weak delete on userbox. The current page is fine. No point in userboxes and certainly not archives. I would also edit the page to delete the "Players" section as keeping a list of players seems pointless. —Doug Bell talk 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:If they must go, couldn't we be selective as to which archives are deleted? Simply south 23:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep games, delete unplayed games, weak delete archives. There's nothing wrong with having a variant or two, but unplayed games like enigmatic and cubic should be deleted, and if you'd like to see past games, just go to the history. A short summary can be provided for each game, if wanted. bibliomaniac15 23:56, 17 March 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.

Delete the rest[edit]

It's been 10 years; the rest of the redirects can probably be deleted.

 Nixinova   T   C   08:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word_Association_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1078599436"