Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Fix the rules not enough explanation

Consider these rules:

1. In order to play the game, one must simply know about the game, and have a basic grasp of the rules. Thus, if you do not wish to become a participant of this simple concept ritual right now, simply click the random page button.

2. There is no way to win the game, but one can, at any given moment, be winning. However, awareness that one is in fact winning will immediately make the winning person a loser. The reasons for this will soon become clearer. It has been speculated, however, that the game may be won by, after learning of the game, never thinking of it again until your death. If you manage to attain this feat. You will have won the game.

3. In order to lose the game, one must simply think about it.

4. Optional rule. If a participant does, on their mental travels, briefly remember the fact that they are playing the game, and thus lose, they are obliged to tell anyone nearby that they have just failed in their subconscious attempt to remain victorious. The most common phrases of use in these circumstances are simply "I lost the game", "I just lost the game" or "I lost".

5. Also, the game. BroNodCom (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that there are hard and fast rles for the game. At the moment the article presents rules whose existence we have verified sources for. However nobody has a source to suggest that these are the only rules. There is no source to say that the rules cannot be changed, or that nobody has the right to change the rules i.e. is there a governing body for The Game? There is also large(?) amounts of anecdotal evidence to suggest that local byelaws or variations exist for the game.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another rule fix should be: Some groups argue that it is impossible to win the game, while others say that if you completely forget about the game and need it to be reexplained to you, you have won. No matter which version one plays, it is impossible for the person in question to win or know that they have won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.182.211 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fallacial

I dont know how to edit but thought someone should edit the strategy. You cannot strategze about the game becasue that would involve thinking of it. Therefore it is not needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerdood621 (talk • contribs) 15:52, November 19, 2009

^I agree with the above person. And maybe short attention span could be added there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.155.213 (talk • contribs) 19:38, March 10, 2010

You can devise strategies during the ~30 minute grace period. There's really no contradiction at all. --Zarel (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

^ I also agree, however if you play with the grace period, then it is possible to lose, invent a strategy, and execute the strategy then forget about the game without losing it more than once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.182.211 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable source in article.

Hi; I don't have a wikipedia account and so I can't edit this article, but there are a few uses of this source:

• "The three rules of the game". The Metro. 2008-12-05

(It's currently source #6). This source is of dubious credibility. Particularly, the variation "rule" about the prime minister being able to end the game comes from that source, which only states, in weasel words, that "some players" claim that rule. That type of source is not credible, and not appropriate for a "fact" in an encyclopedia article. Could somebody with an account please remove that source and the material that references it?

Thanks! --24.188.248.188 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's in the Metro, so that's fine to verify it. Fences&Windows 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't get access to what are currently 2, 4, 6, or 8 ( http://www.metro.co.uk/news/430703-if-you-read-this-youve-lost-the-game , http://www.demorgen.be/archief/artikel.html?i=ODM5Nw== , http://www.metro.co.uk/news/430704-three-rules-of-the-game , http://www.dglobe.com/?event=exception.404&CFID=44302018&CFTOKEN=70154493 ) and 5 is in Dutch. LeftClicker (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, never mind. 2 and 6 are mysteriously now working for me. LeftClicker (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular Game Triggers

This would be a good addition to the article as in some areas people have added "triggers", words, colors, or objects that cause a person to remember the game. One extremely popular trigger is the color orange due to its abundance in the world and the number of sub-triggers that can be created from it such as FedEx whose color scheme includes orange or the college of UM whose school colors are green and orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagger3 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But I'll bet there aren't any reliable sources to verify any of these "popular triggers", so no, don't add them. Fences&Windows 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers tag

Why the hell is there no spoilers tag for this article? I just lost! Glandrid (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(WP:SW.) I wouldnt really consider it to be a spoiler since THE GAME has no plot to spoil. I also think it would be impossible to neutrally warn people about not reading to avoid playing/loosing the game without either explaining the game, which would have the same affor mentioned problems of introducing the game to people and to perpetual loss, or being excessively vauge about it to the point that curiosity will still draw people into loosing THE GAME. On an unrelated note, at some point I intend to elevate this to featured and get it on the front page; legitimate wiki trolling at its finest. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 05:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The game is not a work of fiction. Spoiler tags are meant for occasions where information contained within a section may damage one's enjoyment of a work. Using that tag would be innappropiate.  Marlith (Talk)  20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This'll never get to featured article status, but a DYK could be possible... Fences&Windows 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can center April Fool's Day 2010 around the game.  Marlith (Talk)  03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

M&Ms says hello; HI! I was a persistant critic of Infinity0. I believe he has left wikidom. Can I ask if he created this game?

How to win the game You can win the game by: 1. Never thinking about the game. or alternativly, you can win the game by dieing, thus having no chance of "thinking" about the game.

The Ongoing Game

Hi. I've been advised not to edit the article as I run LoseTheGame.com but maybe someone could add something to the first paragraph to emphasise the fact that after you've lost you start playing again. A lot of people will read this and think that they are permanently "out" of The Game as soon as they think about it for the first time. Cheers Kernow (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording, based on reliable sources? Fences&Windows 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All the sources support the fact that The Game can be lost more than once, so I don't think that is an issue here, it's just the wording to make this clearer. Maybe something like replacing "Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which, according to the rules of The Game, must then be announced" with "Every time a player thinks about The Game, they have temporarily lost. According to the rules, such losses of The Game must be announced." Kernow (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, just noticed that the "mind game" link in the first sentence links to something only weakly related to this... Kernow (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So should we rename the article to The Game (game)? --Zarel (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As it's not the only game called "The Game" I don't think that would be appropriate. I think it does count as a mind game, it's just that "playing mind games" is often used to mean what the Mind game article describes, which is something completely different really... Kernow (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them are particularly well-known, though. And The Game (game) already redirects here, so renaming the article to that isn't going to make much of a difference. --Zarel (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "must be announced each time it occurs" - is this okay with everyone? --Zarel (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's definitely clearer. Kernow (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Encyclopedic?

I thought the whole article was vandalism until I checked the history. I mean the info box looks looks like a joke. I can't believe this article exists. Kudos for keeping it. 86.46.213.211 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No joke. Wikipedia is serious business. Fences&Windows 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean srs biznis. srsly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.255.88 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is srs bzns. That's just common knowledge. --Lronjeremyfoshizzle (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For years, this article was deleted over and over again. I'm glad to see some editors have removed their heads from their asses. It is certainly a verifiable phenomenon which deserves to be documented. This article deserves to exist, dammit. 24.68.79.61 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin date

Whilst I have no evidence that would meet encyclopedia requirements I think The Game is a lot older than the article implies. I remember discussing it at Bradford University in the spring of 1985. My wife believes she first encountered it even earlier - possibly as far back as the late 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.67.248 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It derives from a game called Finchley Central, which was first played by Cambridge mathematicians in the late '60s. That game was almost the same as Mornington Crescent, and the obvious inspiration for that radio game. The other fork of Finchley Central began when the participants would see each other and smirk as they thought about Finchley Central, thus they introduced the rule that if you thought about Finchley Central, you lost the game. With that new rule, the rest fell away. Unfortunately, the link between Finchley Central and The Game as we know it today is not reliably sourced, so we can't include this. Google: "finchley central" "the game". Fences&Windows 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a page on Know your Meme stating that it was invented as you say by Cambridge students (from the Cambridge University Sci Fi Club) in 1977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.55.39 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Know Your Meme cites losethegame.net as its source. This site poses the "Finchley Central" hypothesis, linking discussion of a related game by members of the 1977 CUSFC (mentioned above) to the present form of "The Game". The site also shows email correspondence with some of the members. While Jonty Haywood's site is listed in the "See Also" section, I believe the hypothesis is worth mentioning. Unless there are objections to this, I plan on adding a mention of this hypothesis in the origins section. Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I'm afraid that my website does not fit Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source, and my research that you refer to has not been covered in much detail in the reliable sources. The Loyola source (see the references section) says that The Game may have been "modeled after a similar game played in the UK in which the object is to either not think of or think of certain stops on the London Underground subway" and the De Pers article mentions the "Finchley Central-hypothese" but does not go into any specific details. Combined with the reliable sources with which I sourced my own research (which are linked to on the page on my site that you mention) there may be something you could contribute to the Origins section of this article, but please bear in mind that due to the controversial history of this article it is under a high degree of scrutiny regarding the verifiability of the information that's included. Kernow (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

BPM Variation

A variant (played by Australian teenagers and perhaps others of different nationality) has an extra rule in addition to the current three proposed by LoseTheGame.com. It stated also that "The Game would be finished and done forever if the current 'British' Prime Minister announced on National Television via live broadcast the phrase 'The Game is Up!'" This obviously leaves an expectation that via "word of mouth" or International Medium (e.g. Wikipedia.org, LoseTheGame.com) that the British PM would hear of this rule set and hopefully end the game by following the described events necessary to end The Game. Another possibility to win the game is significantly easier, is to convince another player that you haven't lost the game. For example, when another player announces their loss, you must deny the very exsistence of the game and convince the first person that you're not playing, but still tell at least one person within the thirty seconds alotted to you to announce your loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsciencejesus (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That variation is already mentioned in the article. --Zarel (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

<new variation>

up here in western Canada, we play that if everyone in the world is aware of and playing the game, then the game is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.111.140 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We will not add that unless you can find a reliable source that states it. --Zarel (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, logically, that's what would happen. If everyone in the world was playing, and no one lost (ever again, ie. forgot about the game), then the game is over.71.164.94.191 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic, unless extremely obvious, is still original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia's rules. --Zarel (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the game

don't delete it! some people don't know the rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.28.105 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no current proposal for deletion. Fences&Windows 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules and Origins

I just want to point out that while the five sources cited concerning the rules of the game are reliable sources, they are just speculation. The rules of the game are as cloudy as its origins. The three rules listed are in no way official or agreed upon by all players. I would suggest modifying to the only two agreed upon rules (i.e. how one loses, and announcing it), and then adding speculation about other rules. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: The source cited for the first rule shows the speculation, whereas the article implies that the rule is factually solid, and not up to interpretation.

You're disregarding sources 1,2,6,7,8, which do not imply at all that the first rule is speculation. There might be minor disagreement about whether or not "everyone in the world is playing The Game" (I lost) counts as a real rule, but since few sources mention the disagreement, I don't think it's notable enough to mention in the article itself. --Zarel (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because the particular sources don't cover something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something like the game is an internet culture thing, and by it's nature is going to have incomplete/unreliable sources. Those articles take quotes from one very small area of the world, whereas the game is a worldwide thing and there are many other view points besides those in the articles cited. Spartan S58 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Can you link me to the source that claims the first rule is questionable? --Zarel (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, many versions of the game require stating a certain type of profanity before saying I lost the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.11.33 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. If you can find a reliable source that mentions that, though, feel free to add it. --Zarel (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: i've always played with a rule that stated that one cannot share the concept of the game with anyone who did not already play unless the non-player asked a question about the game (i.e, "what game?"). has anyone else been familiar with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.241.156 (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Generally Accepted formula for the game is best to be taken from it's official home which would be the site which hosts all knowledge of anything Anon Created and that would be the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Furthermore Anonymous should be listed as creator. it's not breaking rule 1 and 2 until you mention you know what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.235.245 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" by who? And why should Anonymous be listed as its creator? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Anonymous is not its creator. Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to record every rumor that floats around 4chan. --Zarel (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refrences in culture or something?

alot of people know of the xkcd comic about winning, and the game is the subject to alot of posts on the chans. Plus im sure theres been other stuff. (and im would be all for closing this article, but i use it to get my friends playing so i can annoy them.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.130.185 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Game ended January 7, 2010

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs178.snc3/20557_1106786449787_1830589226_217158_4795333_n.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by YacAttack (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded by Kryticate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states this, and then it may be included in the article. ;) --Zarel (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"ironic processing" reference

It's worth mentioning the term in the article, but the ironic processing reference doesn't belong in the "Origin" section, and certainly shouldn't be explained in detail there. Editing accordingly... Merc64 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}The Game ended at 22:15:40 (EST or GMT -5) on January 7th 2010, after an incident on 4chan (where the game is mainly upholded and regulated) decisevly ended it. A user under the name 'Anonymous' announced that if his thread post ended in triples (a case where the last three numbers of a post ID are identical numerals), every person playing the game would win, and the game would end. Subsequently his post ID was assigned 187046777.

My username on here is DashH93, if you need proof I have a screenshot, ill upload it to an image host.

Uhh...I think everyone has different opinions as to what ends the game...why did this person "Anonymous" have the authority to end the game? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you say something with "get triples" or something similar on 4chan, and you get triples, whatever you said becomes true. It's lost its meaning recently, as the administrators have started truncating post numbers to try to prevent future 'GETs'. Also, if someone posted a counter-triple, and it succeeded, then the original triple is forgotten. It's all very confusing. Flash man999 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, if you say something with "get triples" or something similar on 4chan, and you get triples, absolutely nothing happens as far as the real world is concerned. --Zarel (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I lost. Tim1357 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More origin accounts

There are other origin accounts given in this source: http://www.laloyolan.com/entertainment/you-just-lost-the-game-1.1589859 218.208.253.234 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Game" can not truly exist or be a game

In order to constitute being a game, you have to able to win ORItalic text lose, and a game has to be able to be played by choice. also, a game has to be acknowledged to be played, there has to be a start, and then a period of time time to either win or lose by some sort of objective. if loss if automatic, then a game never happened. in other words, it is an effort in futile irony, since it pretensiously is called "the game", but defies the definiton of the word "game" on almost every level.

in short, this article shouldn't exist AT ALL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.36.95 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From wikipedia's article on Game, a game is "A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work..." The Game is a game that it is only possible to loose (with the possible exception of Chuck Norris, depending on the rule set). There are many other games like this, including Dwarf Fortress, for example. Caleb Jon^talk 00:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL at the irony of trying to use Wikipedia to prove that Wikipedia is right to continue to host this pitiful article. A game just for loosers is indeed what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever the charmer, Mick. It is amusing that this little game can engender so much hatred, but notable is notable. It's spelled 'losers', btw. Fences&Windows 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It presently exists as an article primarily because bloody-mindedness will accomplish practically anything on Wikipedia. In the long run, its lack of references more reliable than tabloid column-fillers will probably result in deletion when people get bored of defending it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have a wikipedia article on a widely played game. If you cannot accept that tough. Several admins, who are supposed to be responsible users, and normal editors have already gone to ridiculous lengths to delete and obstruct improvements to the article, to remove valid content, and to tenditiously delete references to reality. This has to stop. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has been treated in exactly the same way as any other article which couldn't readily establish its notability. Quite why people believe that so many editors in good standing would take such actions out of malice is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything good about how they stand. Tenditious deletionists would be a better description. Consider the ridiculous obstructionism that occurred whenever somebody tried to add a picture to the article. What a ridiculous farce that was. How many stupid edits had to be made before we established the damn obvious there. Whatever you think about the Game, and I certainly wouldn't play such a pastime, you have to admit that this article is a damn sight better and more informative than many others out there on wikipedia. The notability for it is established, there is no basis for deletion. If you don't agree with that, well simply try to delete it, see what happens. You cannot delete something just because you don't like it. This is not whatilikeapedia.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, deletionists, the last safe prejudice. I'm not actually interested in AfDing this (having lost the stomach for conversations like the one above) anyway, so I think we're done here for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the only reason most people are opposing the existence of this article is WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Even the sources are rationalized as "tabloid column-fillers". The problem here, I think, is that the notability guidelines are a bit unclear (and also a bit too strict). I think when there's a significant number of people looking up a subject on Wikipedia, there should be an article on it, because of WP:IAR if nothing else. --Zarel (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not, and never has been, an excuse to allow non-notable articles. IAR is about ignoring internal beaurocracy if it gets in the way of building an encyclopoedia which complies with the five pillars, the first of which defines What Wikipedia is not. And hosting this junk is a blatant violation of NOT. Wikipedia is not spam or a free advertising service, Wikipedia is not someone's free webhost, Wikipedia is not the venue for shit people made up one day or for gossip or juvenile humour, Wikipedia is not the venue of original research or the venue for speculation and synthesis, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid junk news service. Significant numbers of people are commenting on how ridiculous it is that Wikipedia has an artice on this, that is generally a good enough sign that an article doesn't belong here, it has only remained through campaigns of extreme tendentiousness such as the classic attempts to redefine the GNG, combined with an extremely dubious provenance all round. If this article were forced to comply with all relevant content policies, stripped back to only what comes from neutral, reliable sources, properly attributed, with all blatant self-promotional sources and content of dubious relevance removed, then, if it were passed to Afd with only fresh sets of eyes on it, it would not stand a chance. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the last deletion review. Weep. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the one started by an SPA who had just volunteered his time to 'point out' all the 'multiple' 'reliable' 'sources' that have 'covered' the game making it 'notable'. A regular feature in the history of this article. If you read a little further beyond the JN one liners in that Drv,you will see that not everybody is conned so easily. You will see some very reasoned and thoughtful opinions, from people who clearly know exactly what those sources represented, know exactly where they came from, and see this junk article for exactly what it is. Still, you have to give the SPA credit, he certainly knows how to play people, and Wikipedia, royally, and I genuinely feel sorry for those who have been taken in. Those that aren't his socks of course, obviously. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is a game? Wikipedia says:

"A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool."

so since the game, is a game for enjoyment, it is a game. also _{the game} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See above about the worth of using Wikipedia as a reference to support Wikipedia. And as The Game takes place in the mind and people can make it up as they go along because, despite the fantasy of this article, it has no written rules, it is therefore hardly a structured activity, and it is most definitely not an educational tool. Leaving the last 'defintion', to which all I can say is, if people are playing the Game for enjoyment, they need mental help tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

webcomics

The game featured in two widely read webcomics. Why should this not be mentioned in the article? Who deemed these to be unnoteworthy or why? Wikipedia policy and practice clearly indicates that these can and should have remained in place.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE has a good set of tests for which fictional references are and are not noteworthy. The examples are even taken from a prominent webcomic. I would note that the use of the word "clearly" in the above assertion would seem to hold true to the observation that statements made with the qualifier "clearly" are rarely so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 15 Apri

l 2010 (UTC)

I see you haven't read the article in question then. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a warning for this edit summary. If you have a point to make then do so plainly and civilly. Again, WP:POPCULTURE specifically says which examples are and are not appropriate, even using the example of one of the very webcomics in question, and the reference comes up lacking because there is no demonstration of real-world impact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't read, then don't write. The mention of the game in XKCD quite clearly generated interest and comment as you can easily verify - thus satisfying the criteria for inclusion. I'm sorry that you have to pretend that you don't understand this.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"quite clearly generated interest and comment as you can easily verify" - Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ZinkBelief, as per WP:POPCULTURE in order for an xkcd comic to

be mentioned in the article it must have reliable sources which do not generally cover xkcd point out the strip. If you can find reliable sources then it would be fine to add a mention. Caleb Jon^talk 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Game has been referenced in XKCD, but the reference has not been covered in any reliable sources. Until it is, I don't think the XKCD reference can be included. Kernow (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Winning the game?

I have heard from some people (although others vigorously deny it) that it is possible to win the game by thinking about losing the game (A double negative is a positive.). Is this true, and should we include it? Jonathan321 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not without it being covered in a reliable source I'm afraid. Please read this page for more information: WP:V. Thanks. Kernow (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

the only way to win the game is to not think about it, so before you read this, you were winning.193.61.111.53 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant without it being covered in a reliable source I'm afraid. Please read this page for more information: WP:V. Thanks. --Zarel (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is on the xkcd wiki a suggestion that there is a version of the same game but with win and lose interchanged. I expect that this doesn't meet any "reliable source standards", but it is anecdotal evidence nonetheless.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

People not aware of the game are winning the game. So yes, its possible to win the game. Is like medusa. You can bet her without looking at it. You can win the game, without knowing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.19.80 (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, in the US the game is supposedly over when the president appears on television and announces "I lost the game." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.214.57 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NoNoAnonPlz, 8 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I want to add information so that it's more correct.

NoNoAnonPlz (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

When you use {{editsemiprotected}}, you need to say exactly what needs changing - and you need to supply appropriate reliable sources.

If you want to request that the protection is lifted, see WP:RPP.  Chzz  ►  21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertising The Game on Wikipedia

To advertise The Game on your user page, you can use the following template:

Code	Result
|{{Template:Wikipedia ads|1|213}}	Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #1	Usage

Enjoy! -Oxguy3 02:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is an appropriate Wikipedia ad... it doesn't help the encyclopedia in any forseeable way. —fetch·comms 21:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, while it is funny, I don't see how this works with promoting the editing of specific pages. Still, its a good looking ad. Nice job.  Marlith (Talk)  22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Creator of The Game

Im Mitchell van Manen, a few years ago me and a friend(Nigel Ferrier) were bored when we were searching the web, so we got an idea to make our own game , and what we came up with is yes its The Game at first it started on our school then it moved on to the internet, we never expected it to become so popular that the whole world started to play The Game. lots of people have claimed they invented The Game to look cool etc. the origonal rules were: 1: When you think of the game you must stand up and scream real loudly "I LOST THE GAME!" 2: When you hear or read the words "the game", you will be playing forever. 3: If you hear someone screaming "I LOST THE GAME!" you do not loose i hope this information will be reviewed and added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.159.41 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way we can verify you was a reliable source, however. LeftClicker 01:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftClicker (talk • contribs)

I lost

Would it be encyclopedic to mention that readers of this article automatically lose? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be as clever as adding "What you are doing right now!" to the article on reading. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference the vlogbrothers' video on the game

If someone would add a reference and explanation with reference to Hank Green's video that would be very beneficial.

Vlogbrothers' Video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.114.23 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomic Link

How does the nomic link belong in this article? I'm all for nomic games, but 'The Game' can hardly be considered nomic. 70.171.242.228 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I agree. Removed. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is playing the game?

This is what some of The Game's participants claim, but in reality, one can choose not to participate by refusing to announce losses. Furthermore, it could be argued either way as to whether those who do not know about the game are players or not. This is arguably an NPOV issue, since stating that everyone is playing the game seems to be reflect the bias of supporters of the game. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While on practical terms I don't disagree with you (for instance I'm not playing the stupid thing no matter what anyone says), I think in this instance we are simply quoting the source which is the so-called official rules of the so-called game. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your time. The article is pure nonsense from top to bottom, it is simply the product of shitty journalism, some seriously common sense deficient policy wonkery, and an unbelieveably persistent self-promoter. It should have been deleted years ago. It's only when you examine little bits like the tagged claim in the 'infobox' (a useless bit of puffery stuffed in the article in an attempt to make it not look like a pointless stub), that you realise how illogically stupid the whole thing really is as an article of record. It's a stain on the pedia frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're beautiful. Seriously. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFD would be a good place to get some consensus that it's a self-promiting hopeless fluff on a non-notable topic. Maybe someone can find better sources or rewrite the disaster, or maybe everyone will say "yeah, nuke this pile of rubbish"...either way, WP will benefit. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been tried before. I think everyone has given up. At the very least I'd love to find some articles with people criticizing the whole stupid venture for balance. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be quite welcome actually. As annoying as this thing is to some people, someone where must have written about that. DMacks (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing some idle searching right now but mostly turning up sports links in news pages for obvious keyword reasons. As I usually do when I go source searching, I'll drop anything I find in here for people to use. Unfortunately, beyond the fluff articles several newspapers devoted to it (that do contain minor criticisms) I don't think anybody bothered to follow up. Of course there's tons of blogs and comments around the Intertubes talking about what an idiotic waste they think it is but I can't use any of it (I'm going to try searching some known official famous people blogs since we can use some of those, like Wil Wheaton's blog). I'm hoping that I might find some academic article somewhere. Seems exactly the sort of thing for some psych student to write a funny paper about. But since I get so annoyed every time I start reading about this beast, it may take me a long time to find anything. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Look, MickMacNee, DMacks, everyone, if it annoys you that much just take it off your watchlist and leave the damn article alone. It's notable, it's not going to get deleted, so just get over it. Fences&Windows 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It annoys me that people add nonsense to it and waste editors'/admins' time cleaning it up. I have no horses in the race regarding the page itself--I couched my wording as approximately "if you think...you should..." not "I think...I propose...". DMacks (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of talk page comments

I've been going through this talk page's history and found that at least one administrator is systematically removing valid article suggestions in complete disregard for Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Here is an example of the kinds of comments repeatedly being deleted:

There should be a paragraph about the game mentions in media. Such as when it's mentioned on TV, in newspapers, and lost by famous people. Also include that there’s a The Game app for IPod touch and IPhones. Regular mario (talk)

There is absolutely no justification for such censorship of harmless suggestions and I would advise that regular visitors to this talk page check keep an eye on its history for further disruptive edits. Kernow (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who removes absolutely useless comments (per WP:FORUM, not WP:CHAT as I erroneously referred to before). "It's common knowledge that Chuck Norris doesn't lose the game?" How is that in the least bit useful to improving this article? Look at the history of this talk page. Comments like that are removed quite frequently, and keep the talk page from being a big mess of near-vandalism that is redirected here because the article is protected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm another who watches this page and removes off-topic material. The only allowable use of this talkpage is for discussion aimed at specific ways to improve the article, based on WP:RS and other standard article guidelines and policy. I likely would have not deleted the Regular mario comment, but I would have responded with Wikipedia:Popular culture as just one of many reasons to reject the idea. Wikipedia is not a collection of every metion of a topic, but only either WP:RS supporting specific statements about the topic or major evidence of the impact or relationship of the topic to some other field. DMacks (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is correct to say that admins with an agenda to have this page deleted systematically act together to remove and rebuke suggestions to improve the page and to denude the presented content of the page. Look at the fuss that was raised when a user tried to add an illustrative picture to the article. People were threatened with bans for trying to improve the page. Kernow is correct in his observation and certain people clearly do not deserve to have admin status. I was banned for pointing out that variations of the game exist. Mutliple attempts to improve the accuracy of wording on the article where removed and somebody threatened to ban me for breaching the revert rule despite the fact they were meatpuppetting to get around it themselves. Now we have this farce of removing suggestions to improve the page by citing references to it in popular culture.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All users are welcome to request additional/uninvolved-admin eyes or raise concerns about administrative behavior and the admin-cabal at WP:ANI. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely useless comments? Off-topic material? Let's quote it again just to be clear:

There should be a paragraph about the game mentions in media. Such as when it's mentioned on TV, in newspapers, and lost by famous people. Also include that there’s a The Game app for IPod touch and IPhones.

WP:FORUM that you refer to says "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles", which is exactly what this user was trying to do. Your opinions on whether or not these suggestions should be incorporated into the article should be the subject of your reply, not the subject of your edit summary as you delete this good faith, useful, on-topic suggestion, without any justification at all. I am aware that there of plenty of edits to Wikipedia talk pages that do warrant removal, however, unless you can make your justification for deleting this specific comment clear, please, don't you think that you should admit that you were wrong and apologise to this user? Kernow (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. I'll say it again, there is a pattern of tenditious editing apparent in edits on this page by users engaged in a campaign to remove any improvements to this page. Admins should know that users are entitled to use a talk page to suggest ways of improving it. If they personally disagree with the suggestions for improvement it is absolutely not within their job role to delete the comment, this is unwarranted behaviour.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Loss: defined by thinking or remembering?

I'm more familiar with the game being lost when one remembers the game rather than when one thinks about it. Is there source material to back this up?

If so, it solves the infinite-loss-chain issue: After losing the game, you would be unable to lose again until you forgot about it. It also resolves the arbitrary 30 second/minute rule, which I had never heard of before, since the "grace period" is however long it takes you to stop thinking about the game (and thus become vulnerable to remembering it again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisberichard (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Remembering and thinking about the game both count in the version I am familiar with. That being said, If someone says "The Game" out loud, you lose. even if this dosen't trigger you to think about The Game itself. you just remember it, which is technically thinking about it... Yellow1996 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, but I guess it all depends on this: You either think that:

A: you can lose the game without realising it or B: you can't lose the game unless you realise you have lost the game.

the thing I said before didn't really make any sense. I agree with the "you lose the game if you remember it." Yellow1996 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pricebaker93, 2 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This page should include that some people can in fact win the game. There is a little known way to beat the game, and it is a highly kept secret.

Pricebaker93 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stickee (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Given how many people have stated that you can win the game, it seems illogical not to allow even a suggestion of this on the page. Trying to apply documented evidence to a game that is played for fun, in many variations, on a casual basis, is just stupid. It's all very well to argue that wikipedia must adhere to the standards of verifiablity, but isn't it more appropriate to adhere to the standards of truth? --ZincBelief (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:TRUTH. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No. See policies relating to subject specific common knowledge. HTH. --ZincBelief (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Enragedpillow, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to edit this article, because i have won the game, strictly because i never loose therefore signifying my victory over the rules of the game. This also showing the game to be null and void because of the fact of my victory. Enragedpillow (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)enragedpillow

Enragedpillow (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But by Talking of the game, havnt you just lost it now? Like i have, and everyone reading this who knows what the game rules are and are constantly thinking about it?? ~Soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.5.131 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from K9doggy, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

In some variations of "the game" it can be won by the sovereign or leader of your respective state mentioning them losing the game in a public speech. K9doggy (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the references in the article Elektrik Shoes?--ZincBelief (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I don't see anything that supports this. And in any case, the edit request was improperly formatted. Edit requests should be done in the form of "Please change X to Y," not just some random statement. elektrikSHOOS 21:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.215.17.234, 13 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the lines "You cannot not play The Game;" found in Rules: 1. It is technically possible to quit The Game, by writing "I Quit The Game" on the back of your left hand. The result lasts only until the ink wears off. 24.215.17.234 (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done. Please provide a reliable source to verify this information. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: "thinking about the *number* P"

The Douglas Hofstadter reference is incorrect. As can be verified by looking up the footnote in Google Books, the number P is the number of minutes per month one spends thinking about the number P, not the letter P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.112.211 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

End of the game

The article states: "However, one reported variation states that The Game ends when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announces on television that 'The Game is up.'" I remember reading in an article somewhere, probably years ago, that there was a variation where the game ended when the Pope lost the game. I can't seem to find it again, though. Anyone else heard of this one before? I'm going to continue searching for it. 169.236.44.180 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: My bad - it wasn't an article. Just found it. It's on the Lose The Game site itself. "A number of players believe that The Game ends once either the British Prime Minister, the Queen of England or the Pope announces their loss on national television." Should this be mentioned along with the "The Game is up" variation? 169.236.44.180 (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty cool if we could get the pope to say that the game is up before he goes :) OisinisO (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it count if Michael Sheen or Helen Mirren says it? Sheavsey33 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight edit to rule one.

{{edit semi-protected}}

I can't edit this article, because it's semi-protected, so I need someone else to add this edit. Rule one states that "Everyone is playing the game" but also that it's sometimes narrowed to "Everyone who knows about the game is playing the game". However, one cannot think of something they don't know about. They could think the words "The Game", but they would only be thinking of those words, not the actual Game. Therefore, the rule could be changed to this: Everyone is playing The Game, but people who don't know about the game cannot lose it, because (insert the above logic here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodimonseesu (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what you were looking for. elektrikSHOOS 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin

The Know Your Meme database has a meme on The Game, and according to KYM:

THE GAME was invented in 1977 by members of the Cambridge University Science Fiction Society (CUSFS) who would regularly meet at the Horse and Groom pub (Kings Street, Cambridge, UK) to drink and discuss game theory.

Which can also be found on losethegame.net, with a few more theories about the origins of The Game.

Should this be added to the page? --84.85.214.217 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it's definitely become an internet meme (and looks like a meatspace meme as well) I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, as long as there are no problems with using NYM as a source. I mean the site isn't blacklisted or anything is it? Millahnna (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think know Your Meme would be classed as a reliable source. You'd have to read the details for online sources at WP:RS. Kernow (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jessicamacleod, 4 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

A group of friends from Dunvegan, Cape Breton are believed by many to be the true originators of "the game". (Summer of 1995)

Jessicamacleod (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your statement? Some sort of proof? - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Without a reference, this edit can not be performed. I am closing the request.My76Strat 20:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ommitted rules

After losing The Game there is a 30 minute "grace period" during which it is permitted to think of The Game without losing. It is recomended that players use this time to prepare methods of causing loss, or to prepare themselves to play again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acheron20 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a grace period is pretty standard, but it is apparant the the time you can be in grace for varies from group to group. This used to be mentioned in the article but somebody has deleted it for some reason. Any objections to re-adding this? As subject specific common knowledge it doesn't need a reference, per standard wikipedia policy. However it is also in the reference material.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is mentioned in the article's sources then I'm sure you can add some information with the appropriate references. Kernow (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be added on the official wiki page to let everyone know about the grace period — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leokz145 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not without a WP:RS reference. DMacks (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DMacks that is not correct. Because the claim is not contravertial and can be verified by any player of the game it is patently includable in the article under wikipedia subject specific common knowledge. A lot of other information here could come under that category, but certain Admins like to ban you for suggesting that.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Name change

The name of this article is The Game (mind game). But Wikipedia defines mind games as "passive aggressive behavior used specifically to demoralize or empower the thinking subject", and Wiktionary as "An attempt at psychological manipulation against someone, in order to confuse them". I don't think this description is valid to The Game. Can we move the article name to "The_Game_(Mental-skill_game)" or "The_Game_(Brain_teaser)" instead, to avoid this unfortunate association? Diego Moya (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like the "mental skill game" as either an article title or where it's currently used in the lead. To my mind, it doesn't qualify as being skill based at all. I would considered it a mind game in the sense that it's passive aggressive but I do agree with you that the latter half of that description (demoralizing, etc.) is off base for enough players that it's probably not quite right. Millahnna (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How about 'mental game' instead of 'mind game'?Diego Moya (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That could work; I liked the change in the intro. Definitely closer to the actual concept. I would support changing the title to something like that. Millahnna (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How's about just "The Game (game)"? --Zarel (talk⋅c) 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Winning The Game

There is a rummor that if you think about the game while having sex you win the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.161.163 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) It may be relevant to include http://xkcd.com/391/ witch allows any one to win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.42.144 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not notable enough. Furthermore, it only causes the reader to lose (making up rules doesn't work that way). --Zarel (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clinical death has been mentioned, through demotivators and multiple board discussions, as one way "winning" the game, maybe it is worth mentioning. Also: FFFUUUUUUUUUU....--94.69.161.206 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, demotivators and forum discussions are not notable. --Zarel (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I first heard about the games from a friend, who mentioned that there was a way to win... By getting the British Priministor to say your name at a Nationaly televised event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.121.175 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have heard of this as well, while at the climactic point with your partner, saying "I just lost the game" so it is audible for them to hear leads to winning the game. However, the next time you hear someone loosing the game, they are obligated to explain the rules to you, adding you back into the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xskarprox (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that if one was to completely forget what the game was, then they had thereby won. But if this was realized, then someone would be explaining the game to them again, whereby, they would be back in, and currently losing. Has anyone else heard this? I am surprised that it's not in the article as this is the form of the game that was I was introduced to. Shredthegnarbrah (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody will just have to place this in some reliable publication to get it into wikipedia. It does seem a bit strange to me, since it is subject specific common knowledge and can be verified as such by players of the game.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could one win the game by announcing, without thinking of The Game, that they have won the game? For example, a group of Game players is playing cards, and the winner lays down the winning hand, announcing as he does so, "I won the game." All other players would lose The Game instantly, but if the winner did not think of The Game before saying this, and was referencing only the card game, would he not have won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.149.232 (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, that all you that just read this understanding the rulse of the game, have epically and formaly totaly LOST :D I've heard it that if you make someone else lose, they win over you, because you thought of the game first, makes sense does it not?? O: EPCI I KNOW

There is another way. When you pass or die your last thought must not be THE GAME. therefor you can not lose the game ever again and for all eternity you sit not thinking about the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.194.230 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I clearly said that this was a "variation", which clearly exist through many people, which is EXACTLY what a variation is. All I'm really doing, is putting out additional information, which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. I believe, (unless you can acctually come up with legitimate evidence) that my edit was completeley justified, and should therefore be added back on. --TheCiscoKid _{Talk to me} 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:In popular culture#Good and bad popular culture references which explains when linking to xkcd is a good idea, and when it isn't. Diego Moya (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there is a problem that I noticed while reading this article. However, being a new user I cannot yet edit this MAJOR problem. Beneath the rules, it states that a reported way to end the game is to get the United Kingdom's Prime Minister to announce on TV that "the game is up." This is actually a twisted variation of the truth. The way the rule actually goes is this: "There is only one way to win the game. You have to get the Prime Minister of England up on international television and have him declare 'I lost the game.'" That is the sole way to win the game.

Thanks to whoever puts this in for me. SethChrisDominic (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

THat doesn't match the source that the comment is taken from. Do you have another source that offers that alternate option? Millahnna (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also another way that I have played and it's to find the person who started the game thus ending it. As you probably know this feat is next to in possible so it again just makes the reader lose the game again. \ -- Jerry 5:46PM, October 14 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryguo41 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) It's actually not the prime minister...it's the queen of England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.243.186 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

External Link Removed?

I've linked to the same external page about the game twice now and both times it's been removed, but I don't understand why. The second time I was given a link to external links, but I couldn't find a particular guideline that ILostTheGame.org seemed to break. I think that this site should be included because when I started playing the game years ago, the only website I could find online about it was ILostTheGame.org. Also, there is information at this site that is not available at LoseTheGame.com. What am I missing here? — Odin_son 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in removing these links, I don't think, but I'm looking at this now, Odinsonnah, and while I agree that LoseTheGame does not appear to be any better than ILostTheGame, I'm also not sure why either of them should be linked to from this article. They both appear to be fan sites that list some cobbled-together rules, message boards, and (in the case of LoseTheGame), sales. The operative parts of our External Link policy seem to be to be:

ILostTheGame:

• Links to avoid number 1: The site doesn't contain any information that the article couldn't contain if it became a featured article. That is, there's nothing groundbreaking on the site; what information on the Game it lists is pretty much already in the article as it stands. There's no reason to link to a site that only says what the article already says.
• Links to avoid number 11: fansites. The site appears to be a site created by and for fans of the game, providing space where they can chat about it.

LoseTheGame adds one more reason to exclude it, Number 5, a site that looks like it exists primarily to sell things (debatable) and has objectionable amounts of advertising (obvious).

So the bottom line is that you're right that LoseTheGame doesn't have any redeeming value that ILostTheGame doesn't, but that's actually because neither website meets out External Links guidelines. I'm going to go ahead and remove LoseTheGame from the External Links section right now. If I've missed something about ILostTheGame that you think makes it important to include, could you go into detail about that here on the talk page so we can evaluate whether I've misjudged? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

btw guys, most of the news references use interviews with losethegame.com, like canadian press and metro. those are big news corps are they're using the website as a source... not important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.79 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on my talkpage, 220.x. This somehow slipped past me. To answer your question, the reality is that news sites have different verifiability policies than we do - after all, news sources are often primary sources, and create their stories from a patchwork of pop culture and trawling the social sites. Their using something as a source is not necessarily proof that that source fits our external link or reliable sourcing guidelines. Your project might have another set of sourcing guidelines entirely unrelated to Wikipedia's or news websites'; I have no way of knowing that or giving you advice, so you'll have to do your own evaluation of the sites as sources for yourself.

Anyway, I explained above what parts of our external linking policy the sites don't meet, and none of the problems they have are solved by a news article citing them. So basically you are more than free to use them for your project if you wish, but their suitability for Wikipedia isn't really helped by whether or not they're mentioned in a news article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

everyone is playing

would it be worth putting a piece in about how everyone is playing the game weather they have been told of it or not, and that the first time the rules are explained they loose the game the first time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.190 (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone can provide a specific citation from a reliable source saying that, then sure! DMacks (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I wanted to edit this as well. Because if you think about it, everyone plays the game, and if you haven't head of it, its just that you haven't lost.

You can also go on to say those who refuse to loose/claim they are not playing just cheat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasces349 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose here on this talk-page specific sentences to add or change in the article. They must be supported by specific bibliographic citations from reliable sources. Anything else will likely be ignored and/or removed without comment. Unfortunately, the general public has proven itself incapable of editing the page acceptibly, so you are forced to go through this sort of gate-keeping step. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected to stop editing...

When many, many pages about real things that actually matter are left open for anyone to edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.137.243 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the log, it seems like the page was semi-protected because of excessive vandalism. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

[personal opinion removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.137.243 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that this talk page is not for discussion of editors'/readers' thoughts about article topic or its importance or relevance to...well anything. DMacks (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy of Name

Most definitions of a "game" describe "a set of rules to determine a winner", which contradicts the name, "The Game", as there can be no winners. Others have started referring to it as "The Annoying Past Time", as a more accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmorf (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Origins

The Game actually dates back to 1977 and was created by the Cambridge University Science Fiction Society. The group use to meet to discuss game theory. Members of the group Nigel Goldenfeld and Mark Haslett are considered the most instrumental in the dissemination of the Game.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadhand329 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. knowyourmeme just pulled that from somebody's personal website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

the ref

In some variants, there is a referee for The Game, who cannot lose while he is the ref. The ref announces when someone has won the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.146.194 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Any sources for this variant that we could use?Millahnna (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.138.116.88, 20 April 2011

designer      = The Scouts

86.138.116.88 (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules for the Game

Since the game is inherently memetic, there is no actual rule stating you have to announce your loss, or grace periods or anything like that. The games point is in the players innate inability to not play. Thus, when you add rules like you have to announce a loss you give the player the ability not to play. While it can be fun to announce losing I don't think it's true that a player actaully has to do that, nor is it a part of the original intention of the game. Since there is no clear creator or inherent set of rules available, I think the third rule should be removed, or noted that it is against the 'spirit' of the game. It was likely added to provide some interactivity, to troll other players or some other variation. Pladas (talk) 20:00, 16/03/2011 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.107.162 (talk)

Yeah, well, yknow, that's just like, uh your opinion, man. But seriously, there's documentation for that being a rule, and unless we are a creator, or talk to one, we can't know the "original intention" of the game. Nor is it against the "spirit", as the game is stated. Darquis (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

trigger words

Another important aspect of the game is the use of trigger words. trigger words are certain words that you and/or your friends have decided to link to the game. when the word is used, the mind has linked it to the game and then you have indeed lost the game. the use of trigger words can become very frustrating and ultimately result in an overall increase of total losses of the game. Fhorn1725 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR. This is not verifiable enough for inclusion. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WEIRD!

Am I the only one here who thinks that this game is too weird to exist or even be acknowledged by wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.135.1 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not the only one, but wikipedia does not pick topics based on what you think is normal. DMacks (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I didn't know what The Game was, I googled it, and followed a link to Wikipedia, where my thirst for knowledge was satifsied. So it does belong here. Needles to say, in the process I lost The Game, quite badly :) Tupars (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesnt belong here. Just because you had a "thirst" that needed to be "quenched" and wikipedia did that for you, does NOT mean it is automatically qualified to be a topic here. Some people have curiosities about MANY things that will never be on here. Think about it - a person could be interested in learning just about anything - that doesnt mean its fair game for wikipedia. Maybe the original poster and myself are wrong in feeling it doesnt belong here, but following a link here and satisfying your need to know about this, is not enough. And for the guy above you, c'mon, dont be one of those guys who just posts wiki policies, that is so annoying. If you have an opinion or proof that his statement violated the policy, then share. Otherwise, dont just make a useless post showing policy, its just a waste.108.2.105.41 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Given how wide-spread and common this game is, it most certainly is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. No further reasons for this article's existence are necessary. Further, there isn't even any doubt about its notability given that it has already had media coverage in several major news networks.82.176.211.89 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 222.153.253.243, 23 May 2011

222.153.253.243 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC) huh?

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. elektrikSHOOS 08:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from rvireday, 20 June 2011

Please include/add a Media Reference, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2227 which is a wonderful parody of The Game, satirically outlining other logical variants.

BTW, my kids have been playing this well over 2 years now. Definitely deserves mention in culture, and seems well worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 216.151.20.74 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)rvireday

Edit request from 75.200.59.26, 20 June 2011

The game can be lost multiple times. But it can only be lost once every thirty minutes.

75.200.59.26 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article specifies that there are variants with grace periods, everybody plays it differently--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.27.44.174 9 July 2011

The editor who originally posted this copied over another edit request section. I have restored the original section, moved the editor's comment here and responded to the edit request. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation has an episode called "The Game," with a plot device of the name. Instead of passive playing, the player is actively playing The Game to a certain degree. They know about The Game, but to play, the player doesn't try to win. 24.27.44.174 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Lacks sourcing, and I don't see the direct relevance to the article. In addition, trivia sections should only mention notable uses of the subject and not merely be a raw list of mentions per the MoS guidelines at WP:TRIVIA. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Winning the Game

Winning the game. One may win the game under only one condition. A player must be in the presence of the current Queen or King of the United Kingdom. if HRH loses the Game without the player losing the game before HRH, then the player shall declare winning The Game.

SpiderFarmer2 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think so. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Winning

how does one win the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.92.111 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

By not playing. 173.85.39.144 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You cannot not play. You also cannot win. Usually. Most versions of The Game say that one is always playing The Game, one cannot win The Game, and the only way to avoid losing The Game is by not thinking about it. Which you have already done so by showing up on this page. So you lost. As did I. And anyone who reads this.--SanDemonMax (T) (C) ^{(An Uncyclo-nutcase)} 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You all just lost for searching this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.236.111 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirection

Please redirect from "You just lost the game", which is a more common way of saying "the game" on the Internet. 24.104.127.1 (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Grace Period

I recognize that there probably doesn't exist a source (although i haven't really thoroughly looked for one) to state that a "grace period" occurs after one has announced their loss of the game. But think about it like this: when you lose the game, you announce said loss. Do you not think of the game when you do so? Shouldn't you then announce again? And again, and so on? Without a grace period, you would be losing into infinity. Darquis (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the article. We can't add unsourced logical consequences of the stated facts, because that would be wp:original research. For example the rule that "Everyone in the world is playing The Game" is also absurd (someone that thinks of the game and doesn't announce it is definitely not playing), but we can't write that into the article. Diego Moya (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They're playing. And cheating. :D Darquis (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

the policy applicable to subject specific common knowledge allows additions in this category, as you should be well aware. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean the essay for subject-specific common knowledge? That opinion by one editor doesn't override the policy stating that all content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The "nutshell" box says it all: "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up." Diego Moya (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the above, I'd hardly consider that common knowledge. Also see the counter-essay WP:POPE. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Common knowledge refers to things that are so bloody obvious that they don't need a source. Now Not everyone plays 'The Game', because it's a deeply sad and childish past time, however, for those that do actually play it certain things are bloody obvious to them. That's why we can allow Subject Specific Common Knowledge in this article, when it comes from 2 or 3 people who clearly play the game. This is current practice on wikipedia. I know for the article on Go, there has been no problem using subject specific common knowledge when we got a consensus from the wikigroup. That's the way it should be. Now lets face it here, we have had a whole bunch of people state that there is a grace period on these pages. You'd have to be pretty weighted down in BAD FAITH to reject so many assertions of the grace period. The reasons it does get wiped off this page are 1. Certain admins want rid of this article, and like to ban people who don't agree with their position on what content should be here. 2. There is a lot of vandalism on this page, which probably makes a few people suspicious of certain additions. There is a sustained campaign to remove this page. I faced some very heavy opposition for simply adding a picture to this page, a perfectly normal and illustrative addition to any page, that people tried to oppose by any conceivable means. I am really fed up with that kind of attitude holding sway over this page. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia for everyone. It is not an encyclopedia that holds only the information you want on it. Unless there are any actual serious and valid reasons why a grace period shouldn't be mentioned on this article, I will have to take this to a dispute forum, or whatever that is called these days. I am not prepared to let childish editors wreck or hijack wikipedia.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

But by having some on shout out The Game to start The Game everyone would of thought about starthin The Game so everyone had lost The Game before it even started! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.67.196 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have played The Game in America, where we used a grace period of 30 minutes, I have also played in England where we used a grace period of 20 minutes. What I will say is that the people with whom you are directly playing The Game with will decide on a grace period (this may be an unspoken agreement) and this will differ from group to group. As a result, it may be appropriate to include the concept of a grace period in this article, however there is no reason to state what the period is. (Disclaimer: I didn't introduce either of my groups to The Game, the second group actually caused me to lose The Game after a period of 6 months. which is a pretty long time to go without losing.) Akjar13 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)