Forum:The Games namespace

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Games namespace

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5092 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Is 99.9 percent shit. Discuss. (I'm being purposely short and vague because I want to see what everybody else's opinions are) -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:52, 18 Feb

• Delete. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:53 Feb 18 2010

That's actually kinda what I'm getting at. If we can come to a consensus, I was thinking we just get a trusted admin to go through it and protect the little bits that aren't shit and just delete the rest. No fucking around with VFD, no votes. Just swift and absolute justice. Thoughts? -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:56, 18 Feb

Delete it. It's cruft and I'm not even sure if it qualifies as a parody namespace of anything on Wikipedia. If users want to keep and create games in their own userspace, then that's an option for any who don't want to lose their precious junk gems. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:00 Feb 19 2010

• I think UN:N —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:01, 19 February 2010

And that's the problem. If nobody cares, let's just delete the stupid namespace. It only attracts shit to an already shit section of Uncyc. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:05, 19 Feb

Here's why you should care: The games mainspace is a lot of our bandwidth. Wikia has threatened to end us if we don't cut down our bandwidth. Also, 2012 and 9/11 at the same time. And the terrorists will get us if we don't do this. And we'll have to remove all the pr0n from the site unless we get rid of games. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:06 Feb 19 2010

Is that actually true? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:17, 19 February 2010

Yes. Especially the part about the terrorists. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:24, 19 Feb

Well, I guess removing the crappy ones wouldn't hurt anyone. I hope. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:23, 19 February 2010

• I Concur. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:52, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we have a featured game: Game:Pick Up the Phone Booth and Aisle. What would become of that? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 15:36, Feb 19 2010

Also, Template:UnGames can be helpful when looking at which games to delete (if in fact the admins say yes). • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 15:38, Feb 19 2010

I'm not suggesting we delete any featured games (Cajek has one as well) nor would I dream of suggesting we delete Zork. We could keep the few decent ones in the mainspace and get rid of the games space along with the vast majority of games which are utter shit. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:33, 19 Feb

First, EMC, stop spreading bullshit. Second - there is no way in hell we're removing an entire namespace like that. Granted, many of that is crap. But there are some good stuff there. Feel free to nominate the landing page on VFD, and your trusted admins will be happy to remove all 500 pages related to that game. But otherwise, we're not creating a VFD bypassing process. One man's crap is another man's freedom fighter. ~ 17:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

That is (obviously) so long as the nominator provides a way for the admin to find all the pages which might be huffed. Some games can't be found with PrefixIndex, and those need links on the VFD page (which can be included under the 1 nomination). MrN 03:37, Feb 20

May I ask why we can't remove the namespace? If you insist on VFDing the games individually I can understand that. But why do we need to keep the namespace? It's just a magnet for unfunny crap. How many "What would you like to do next? []Saw your leg off with a chainsaw. []Be eaten by a grue" jokes do we really need? -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:49, 19 Feb

OK, I'll be more clear. We won't be removing the namespace based on the opinions of 5 people. You'll need a very clear majority vote on that (and 5 people voting for against a lot of individuals not giving a damn about a vote does not count as a majority vote yes?). And even then, we'll have to decide on the faith of individual articles - so we don't get rid of featured and good ones. Other than that, I think it would be better to clean it up and be much more strict about quality control before resulting to such drastic measures. ~ 17:57, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I would totally support the idea of being more strict about the games created instead of removing the namespace. I just really feel that something should be done about it. Yes, most people don't care. To me, that's the main problem. We need to give a damn collectively or it's just going to keep growing and getting worse. I'm open to other suggestions as well. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:02, 19 Feb

Keep. Per the Jew's policy of not genociding stuff. --Mn-z 00:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what's a magnet for unfunny crap? Uncyclopedia. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Header

Here's a perfect example of the crap that gets added to the gamespace every day. This kind of crap slips through because UN:N and doesn't bother to check them in recent changes (I'm just as guilty as anybody else). At what point does it reach critical mass? -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:09, 19 Feb

• For deleting mass amounts of game space, but definitely go the VFD route. Also, we should get one or two admins assigned to watch over it perhaps, such as Zim does on unnews for example. I think at one point long ago we had one of those, but then again, I actually have no idea what I'm talking about. But agreed that it's almost all shit, and needs to be dealt with, I think for a while we've sort of been overlooking it because of its massive size, but the recent VFD success of that 300 pager or so, whatever it was, should be testament to start something constructive going on with it. -RAHB 23:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's safe to say that most people would be happy for entire games to be nominated under one VFD nomination from now on. So long as there is a link for the admins to be able to find each page. I don't want to have to play the whole game to find all the pages to huff. Using Special:PrefixIndex is fine in my book, but not all the parts of all games can be included in one Special:PrefixIndex search. How would we deal with that?

I think actually the games which are really pants and should be cleaned up first are the ones which are not actually linked from Game:Main Page. There are lots of them. People who have bothered to add to the template probably created the better games. The "problem" however is not going to go away unless we start treating new games like we do new articles. Would we ICU them? We don't now. Now we just let anyone create any old carp and UN:N. Before bothering to clean up the old carp we should probably come up with a system which regulates how the new games are created. Any ideas? MrN 02:31, Feb 20

That system used to be called Zork Implementor L. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:02, 20 Feb 2010

• The only way I can deal with Games: is ignore it; likewise HowTo:, the catch basin for pre-teens who think that nagging is how to act like an adult. It does keep them out of mainspace but, again, that is a problem best solved by a wood-chipper (or, for the gentler, a week in Detention). I generally don't even vote on VFD regarding these namespaces. If deleting massive amounts of cruft here would improve performance slightly, that would be a slightly good thing. Spıke ¬  11:41 20-Feb-10

Ya might want to read HowTo again. There are excellent pieces and many features coming out of that space. ~ 14:50, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I read his comment as "It's really easy to write a formulaic HowTo and, as such, most of them tend to be that thing I just said". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Rant

I've already written it on User talk:Mordillo and then a respected editor advised me it should be here, but I'm too lazy. In short, there is good stuff amongst the cruft - I prefer to fix problems rather then just delete them, and as to parody - the humour is in that there is parody of games, which is not a wikipedia parody, but then again, neither is Dragon Warrior - who wants to put that on VFD? Pup 02:19, 20/02/2010

Another Header

I'm concerned some games are being too quickly thrown aside. People look at the first page and maybe two or so subpages, say "meh" and vote delete. I'm not asking people to go through every page of the game, but I'd like them to consider the work that went into creating the game and, well, think about if it's really that bad. I mean, people are voting delete on almost every Zork-like game that's not Zork, but fail to realize there's a lot of worse games out there. We can't just delete every sequel and spin-off because it's "been done before". I'd like for us to have some games left after all of this. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:17, 20 February 2010

A subheader, because I'm a rebel

Okay consensus as far as I can see:

1. We don't like what has happened to the game namespace
2. There is a lot of cruft in there that needs to go (although possibly less than 99.9%)
3. There are a number of people who want to keep the game space running, and as a result we don't want to huff the entirety
4. We need to VFD stuff that is on there
5. Potentially people are being too quick to suggest huffing an entire game based upon minimal inspection.
6. We need to stop the game space becoming crufty in the future.
7. Gamespace is sucking up a lot of our bandwidth

Okay, and the solutions that we have been putting in place are:

1. Adding games to VFD
2. Huffing like a big huffing thing

And the potential changes that have been proposed are:

1. Don't allow unregistered users to edit the namespace
2. Huff the entire namespace, with the potential exception of pick up the phone booth, the Cajek game (whatever that is) and Zork.
3. Have games going through a PEE review before they can be published to the namespace
4. Have someone become a moderator of the game namespace specifically
5. Be more vigilent on the game namespace as a general rule

Is there anything that I missed in all of that? Pup 05:27, 20/02/2010

Removing the namespace would dump 10,092 game pages into main article space. It's in its own namespace for a reason. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:03, 20 Feb 2010

Yeah, I suppose removing the namespace is a bit rash. But I'm definitely for disallowing IP's to create new games, at least temporarily until we can clean it up a bit. I have no problem with them editing pre-existing games, but then I don't even know if it's possible to restrict editing this way. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:25, 20 Feb

Actually, I believe that the majority of crap created can be attributed to registered users, rather than IPs. Plus, by doing that we'll be bypassing the decision that was taken numerous times not to block IPs from editing. Personally, I'll take a better look from now on at the game space. Me can also consider vigilance week specific for game space. Also, I think you just volunteered to look after the game main page O_O ~ 14:49, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

LOL maybe I shoulda just kept my mouth shut, eh? -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:54, 20 Feb

I would question if the gamespace is really "sucking up bandwidth". I believe the policy on bandwidth issues is to assume everything is fine until Wikia staff say something. --Mn-z 00:29, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that was bullshit. Sorry, I thought everyone knew that. Any traffic is good traffic in Wikia's eyes I would suggest. MrN 00:44, Feb 25

Okay. In that case 99.9% of what has been said in this forum is really bullshit. I'm all for killing the cruft, but there's no point in killing this if it's keeping the vandals busy on something nobody cares about. Nominally Humane! some time 00:58, 25/02/2010

I fucking HATE that bullshit argument. If nobody cares about it, then why shouldn't we delete the stupid namespace? We should keep it around to encourage asshats to add shit to the website? Seriously? What kind of dumbass rationale is that? -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:51, 25 Feb

By Bullshit, I meant the bit about the bandwidth issue. Some people do care about some of the games I guess. That's kinda why they are voting keep on a few of them at VFD. MrN 17:03, Feb 25

I meant that the argument about keeping vandals busy was bullshit. The bandwidth "issue" was a pretty obvious joke I thought. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:08, 25 Feb

Sorry. A way to keep vandals busy was actually said tongue in cheek as well. I want to keep the name space mainly for the reason I weighed into the argument in the first place. The Game space is what brought me into Uncyc in the first place. I don't want to kill it as it could potentially bring in other types of me. Or something. Nominally Humane! some time 20:14, 25/02/2010

I think what happened was we said it was OK to nominate a whole game with one VFD nomination from now on. A few people nominated a few games for VFD, and then got bored. Best of all OptyC is now in-charge of the game namespace so everyone can blame him for it being pants. :0) No one came up with a suggestion for how the creation of new game pages could be controlled, which is actually what the issue is really... MrN 01:03, Feb 25

Ahem 3. Have games going through a PEE review before they can be published to the namespace Nominally Humane! some time 01:10, 25/02/2010

But... What about people adding pages to current games? It's adding new pants pages to all the other carp games which is just as much of a problem as new games. How would we even know which games were new and which were old anyway? There are so many of them. MrN 01:21, Feb 25

And on a related note, deleting stuff does NOT save on server space either. Deleted pages are merely hidden and can be restored by the admins. --Mn-z 03:33, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression from a previous conversation that eventually what happens is the server gets cleared up after a while and deeted pages that are over x months old are removed. Nominally Humane! some time 04:09, 25/02/2010

Nope. And deleting something actually takes up more space, because it doesn't actually delete anything, but also adds to logs and the like. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:02, 25 Feb 2010

Ah, well. Give that then I'll try to be a little more careful about creating pages that I don't intend to keep. (Having said that, I have a bunch of stuff that I actually will want to delete soon. Ooops.) Nominally Humane! some time 06:33, 25/02/2010

A sub-sub-sub-sub-header

I did not get "bored". I actually went away for the weekend, and then my Grandma died so I had to go to her funeral. So you'll understand if I've been a bit preoccupied. Rest assured I will continue to add crap games to VFD on a regular basis. Side note: Stop talking about bandwidth and server space. That is so not the issue. The issue is quality. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:48, 25 Feb

Sorry to hear about your news. The loss of anyone close to you is a bastard of a thing to deal with, and no-one is judging you negatively for being there for your family. Nominally Humane! some time 20:14, 25/02/2010

A vote of this sub-sub-proposal

All games should go through a PEE review before being posted to the game namespace.

•  For. As long as it gets somewhere above 30 on a review it's okay enough to be posted. If it's below that then re-work it in User space until it is of a quality that is worth publishing. Nominally Humane! some time 01:10, 25/02/2010
•  Against.

1. Such a proposal would require large scale article movement, which only admins or bots can do with any efficiency. In the off-chance that someone creates a decent game in gamespace without getting it reviewed, every page therein would be deleted, undeleted, moved ot userspace, and moved back to gamespace.
2. I dislike having "must create in userspace" rules, or any sort of special page creation rules. Basically, anyone who knows about such rules is probably not going to create deletable content in the first place.
3. This goes against our policy of allowing really weak content if there is a chance that it might get better. --Mn-z 02:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

A tail ender (because I came late to the party)

•  Against. 'cause I have an idea for a game and I don't want you all judging me (again).  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  26 Feb 2010 ~ 05:42 (UTC)
•  Against. That would just be too much work. Nobody would want to create a game if they had to go through the trouble of getting it reviewed. —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A sub-subheader, because I would want to re-butt

Deleting the Game page? Come on people, my game hasn't been finished yet (it's now a white elephant waiting to collapse, but that's the other side of the story) and if you delete the Game page, then Zork is gone! We can't have grues without Zork! That would be like having the Big Mac without McDonald's! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kyurem CUN|IC Kill | 06:52, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Next time you want to post in a forum, read what others have said first. MrN 09:57, Feb 22

I propose a meeting

Let's get OptyC and Zork Implementor L together in a room, give them some knives and the winner can decide what happens --Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:49, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER HEADER!!1

Anyhow, if you're wondering about Grueslayer, please don't delete it. The reason it's stagnant is because i'm stagnant! I moved from Bangor to Owl's Head recently and I haven't got internet at the house yet. I'd still like to work on Grueslayer, but it's inconvenient to do so now. When I set up my connection, i'll round up all the Implementors, review the game as a whole and try and have another go at it. PLEASE, i'm asking you to not delete it! Go talk to BlueYonder about it if you need more input. I won't be available for a while, due to the fact that I can only get on the internet on infrequent library trips. Grueslayer has a lot of potential, but to realize it, all you need is a little patience. I don't want to see it die, not like this. If you're going to nuke it, at least think first. I worked on this game for quite a little while, it's been around since 2007, and I really, really want to start on it again. Cross my heart and hope to die, i'll start on it when i'm connected. Take my words into consideration! I and a few others think Grueslayer is one of the best games in the gamespace, because, in my opinion, it's funny, it's innovative, and it's green! It even has roots in Abyss and Zork. In summary, I wrote all this shit because I care about my game(and I WILL come back and work on it), and i'd like to see it survive the coming huffstorm. --Trar (talk|contribs|grueslayer) 18:59, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Keep it around; it's had a lot more work poured into it over time than virtually everything else in that namespace. --Asema ^{(can't we resolve this?)} 19:38, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Um, this isn't about your game. It's about the gamespace in general. —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he knows that. If you haven't been on VFD lately, you wouldn't know that many games have been nominated for deletion. Trar's expressing concern that his game might get nominated, and he's telling everyone that he's still working on it. So chill, yo. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} UTC

No u DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCSK HOLY SHIT NO SOMEONE HAXX MY ACCOUNT ARSE WTF WHO THE FUCK AAAAAAAAAA —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Me? Read things? That's a good one.

I'd given this some thought before I saw this forum topic - In fact, I'm kind of surprised I haven't said this yet. Have I? The problem with the games namespace is this: noobs see Uncyclopedia and decide they want to try their hand at creating something, and it's often crap that wouldn't survive past its maintenance tags, just like in any other namespace. Game is special because Game pages are "supposed" to be light on content, so no one ever ICUs them. They're also harder to police for bad edits because most of the editing is done on entirely new pages. I believe that a wiki game could work, just like any other namespace article, provided people finish what they start and it's not easy for any idiot to come crap all over it.

Because it's so hard to detect idiocy on [[Game:]], I would motion that we block all IPs from editing in that namespace. I don't know how technically difficult that would be, but it would probably involve rejiggling the user group rights of (all) and User. Please don't make a "slippery slope" argument out of this. I don't want IPs blocked from editing the entire wiki and niobody does. But you have to admit that Game is kind of special. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 00:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

PS. Yettie tried to create a registry of sex offenders undeveloped games, but there's no way to make people play along. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 01:04, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd run the risk of ip's dodging the restriction by putting games in other namespaces.

To put it in perspective, a similar problem exists in unNews and template-spaces, in that there is little regular maintenance of those namespaces. Zim_ulator does do QA in the UnNews, and some horrible unNews has been QVFD'ed, but that section is generally immune to ICU, VFD, and "fix" tag maintenance. Likewise, nobody regularly patrols templatespace (to my knowledge). --Mn-z 04:00, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

A game outside of the Game space would be really easy to spot, though. Just look for all the unfunny one-sentence articles popping up. I don't think Template and UnNews draw as much crap as other spaces, because writing a fake news article or coding a template takes a little more sophistication than writing arbicle about how my friend Mike kicked Chuck Norris in the nuts. While you're right that people don't often VFD UnNews articles, it looks like Zim and the other admins have QA under control. There are 30 or 40(!) articles less than a week old listed on the front page and they all look pretty solid to me (judging from the titles, or course). Now, are you saying it's time for another crusade in the Template namespace? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 04:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

With regards to bad unnews and templates, I have seen stuff Mr winkler is GAY-type or worse. Granted, the bad unNews was due to either stuff slipping though the cracks or, or likely, being created before we had decent QA in that area. And on a related note, I'm always in favor of a template VFD crusade, but I digress.

With respect to the game space, I would say its actually less of a quality threat than ip edits of mainspace articles. For one, game articles do not show up in normal web searches nor on the random page button. Also, games don't have a "like spawns like" quality risk against our popular articles [i.e. randumb articles create similar randumb articles, such as "moviecruft"] that mainspace articles have. If we should stop ip edits in game-space, then why not template-space <insert rant about bad templates>, or uncyclopedia-space (do really want ips to be able to edit policy pages?), or file-space (99.9% of ip edits in filespace are pointless comments on images or category/licensing vandalism), or main-space? --Mn-z 22:49, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Whatever Syndrome said

Score: 1

•  For. Apparently. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 00:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

New Header

Ok, I'm probably repeating what everyone else already talked about because I'm too lazy to read what everyone has to say. I think that a group of users should be selected to organize and run the whole game thingy. It's really unorganized and rarely updated. -Da man360^Talk HAPPY 20:18, 7 March 2010!

This subject has been discussed many times before and no one takes action because it's a lot of work but, people need to be willing to do something about these games. I swear I've seen this conversation millions of time before and nothing ever happens so even if it means deleteing all the games and starting over only allowing good games to be added, as long as something is done I'm cool with it. -Da man360^Talk HAPPY 20:39, 7 March 2010!

Works in process

I've had a thought about the works in process area of the game space. A lot of these are incomplete and abandoned, and nobody has shown any real inclination to complete them. Are we able to userfy the whole kit and kaboodle of them? Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 21:11, Mar 10 2010 UTC