Template talk:WikiProject Video games

Change to use WPBannerMeta

I think this should be the new code. There are a few small differences though. The main one is that the collapsible section and the portal link look different. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can completely understand the reasons for switching to the WPBannerMeta code and almost agree with it, except for a few little things: The portal, I don't like the way the little box squashes all the other text; I prefer how the current version hides unused fields such as rating and importance and hides it when it is set to NA as well; I prefer the smaller "to do" box we have right now on the template. If these issues can be resolved I'd be all for it, but right now the current version is attracting me more. --.:Alex:. 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the portal link and to-do list can be changed, but I don't think there is a way to hide unused fields. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the portal and to-do list. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this force WP:VG to use things like C-class and List-class if they are implemented project wide, or can we still have our own assessment scale? User:Krator (t c) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes it will be available as a valid parameter, but if no one uses it, then it isn't used. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to change the WPBannerMeta code to hide those fields? It's worth investigating... Also, it looks much better with the reduced portal box and smaller to do box. --.:Alex:. 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta can be great if you're making a new project or for projects whose banners are poorly maintained, but it's probably not needed here. Is there a reason for the standardization? --- RockMFR 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not, and this is also easier to maintain in the future. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons why not - see above! --- RockMFR 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The only still valid concern from above is that unused fields are not hidden. 1≠many. So are there any other reasons? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's the only concern, shouldn't it simply be raised at Template talk:WPBannerMeta to have the template modified? It wouldn't be a very controversial change. Kariteh (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be controversial. I personally like the ???, because it shows that it has not been specified, and it should be. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up this proposal again. Is there a reason not to use it? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the only reason against it is the auto-assessing stuff. I still don't see the supposed "many reasons" that RockMFR alluded to. Kariteh (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Change requested

Could anyone remove the old GCOTW tag, since the articles cannot be candidates anymore. Also, keep the "old-GCOTW" tag and fix the part on the front page that says it's inactive.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of task force articles

Would it be possible to modify the template so that, when the task force designation gets used, the talk page automatically gets categorized just like the {{WPMILHIST}} template already does? MuZemike 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Easily done, so more a question of: Would we want to? To what depth? I personally don't see a need for anything past Category:Sega task force articles and certainly wouldn't want anything past that point. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree. Just a category listing all Sega TF articles, one listing all Arcade TF articles, etc. It doesn't need to go into anything deeper than that. MuZemike 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I would suggest asking the rest of the project to see what they want. Two people a consensus does not make. :) --Izno (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

The template says "Note: Gaming Collaboration of the Week is no longer active, therefore this parameter is deprecated and should no longer be used." Is that true? It seems like the Collaboration of the Week is currently active. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New Code

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay. This discussion has come to an end. Concensus was to transfer the data along with changing in the below ways. Further discussion, comments and problems should be done below. Thank you.  Dylanlip  (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This template needs to be changed to the code found at {{WP VG}}, as per the consensus here. But first I propose some changes:

1. The needs-infobox and attention parameters should be changed from the task force hooks that they are using to the built in parameters, which would save 539 bytes and would only change the size of the pictures slightly.
2. Some of the task force parameter abbreviations should be discussed. Most are fine, but I think there should be some uniformity to all of them. (i.e. Starcraft to StarCraft), and possibly change all of the parameters to the full name of the task force, so the abbrieviation does not have to be looked up every time to see how that particular task force was named.

MrKIA11 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to #1 - Larger and more clear images are better for illustrating a notice. Also, using our own parameters would allow us to customize it when need be.

Opposition to #2 - Adding the full name of every task force into the parameters would be counterintuitive to #1, which aims at saving bytes .

Those are my two oppositons. Simply transfer the code and get done with it. I got a large project that I'm needing to start. Consensus was already reached for simple transferral. Stop delaying the transfer by making us go through more consensus.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Achieving consensus now is to prevent problems later. Please wait until more people are able to weigh in on this issue. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the first item, but I agree that the full task force names should be used. Yes it will increase the byte size, but I believe it will be more user friendly to those unfamiliar with wiki code and templates. Templates lose value when only a select number know how to use them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

(haven't looked at the meta code) is it possible to use both the full names and an abbreviation? –xeno (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case I think the full names are better. –xeno (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you'd rather have SuperSmashBrothers= as a parameter insted of SSB=? That's plain ridiculous. It's a waste of space, and it's even WORSE for newer members. Besides, newer members don't get involved in this sort of thing. And plus, part of my project includes replacing the old code that still stays in the Task Force pages. That's actually helping the newer members. If you're talking about the name that shows up when displayed, that's already in full. Look at the template. The only thing abbreviated is the parameter, because longer parameters = larger size template takes up = wasted bytes.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How is worse for newer members? They don't have to find out the abbrieviation. It's always the same as the task force name. Plus you picked the longest one, I'm guessing on purpose. And bytes are not an issue. Usability comes before size worries. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You never answered my first question. Do you support the change of parameter from SSB= to SuperSmashBrothers=? Also, do you think abbreviations are bad for new members, even though new members don't go near this sort of thing?  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying everything twice, I'm going to continue this below. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment.:

• • I find the task force parameters kind of misleading, where it says taskforce=yes as opposed to the current tf=taskforce parameter.
  • We don't have a formal B-Class (or A-Class in that matter) assessment scheme, so I don't know if having the b1, b2, etc. parameters are necessary. just having a B parameter would be I think OK.
  • I don't object to keeping this one, but note that WP:VG/C is inactive, so I don't know if having the cleanup or cleanupreq parameters are really needed. That is, unless that page gets revived again like GCOTW was.
• Just some thoughts on. MuZemike 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The benefit of using {{WPBannerMeta}} is that all of this is easily changed. I agree with not needing the B-class checklist, and if we ever created a formal B-class process, we could add it back easily. The same thing with cleanup; it is unnecessary now, but if it ever is revived, it is easy to add back. As far as the taskforces go, I vote for the new way. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point to bring up is that the code is now setup to change importance to priority. I'm indifferent on this, except that it might be odd when there are multiple project templates on a talk page, some of which use importance, and ours that uses priority. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Muze, I believe the reason for the new taskforce treatment is a particular page may fall under more than one task force. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the current template supports multiple (I think someone mentioned up to three) task forces, using tf, tf2, and tf3 paramaters. I suppose my question is that are we gaining or losing any functionality from going to the new way of designating task forces besides bringing the max up to five? MuZemike 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the new way makes them more prominent, which could help improve their lack of activity. Other than that, I don't see any article needing more than two task forces looking over it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Exactly. Task forces can now display logos, will show up seperatly to give more prominence to each one, and can be completely customized.(Using task force parameters to make up notices/alerts) Also, the current template supports three taskforces. The new one supports an unlimited number.(Thanks to the tf hook)  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The new format gains the ability to have as many tasks forces as needed, no limit, and each one has it's own line, unlike before, which was is supported by tf1, tf2, and t3. We also have the ability to have the pages categorized by task force, which I think would be a good idea, as it makes it easier for the task forces to see all the pages that fall under their scope. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something I fully agree with you on. Everything has been settled and consensus has been reached for everything except for the naming problem. Parameters are not meant to have the full name used. Do you ever see cleanreq= written as CleanupRequest=? Or old-GCOTW= as ArchivedGamingCollaborationoftheWeek=? Shortening the parameters makes everything simpler. This includes task forces.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explicitly say it, I thought I made it clear, I support SuperSmashBrothers. It is bad to assume what new members are going to do. Someone might be interested in a task force, and feel like making sure all the pages are tagged with the parameter. It's impossible to know what individuals are going to be interested in doing. Those individual parameters are not the same as the 22 task forces that IMO should have some consistency to their parameters. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylanlip- I mean this in as polite a way as possible, but I think you're confusing shorter more compact coding for simplistic user friendliness. While many VG members are in favor of the new format, very few are actually adept at template syntax and may not be sure what details the change actually entails. We can take some time to get this sorted out right this one time instead of tweaking as we go. You won't have to do all the template changes yourself either; we can help with it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Can the task forces be associated with two parameters as is done on Template:MILHIST? —Ost (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. {{WPBannerMeta}} doesn't support it, AFAIK. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

At the end of the template, please change:

{{#if:{{{tf|}}}{{{peer-review|}}}{{{old-peer-review|}}}{{{or magazine|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}

to

{{#if:{{{tf|}}}{{{peer-review|}}}{{{old-peer-review|}}}{{{magazine|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Code Discussion

← It's been a while and no one else has really chimed in about the two issues above. Consensus seems to be that the full task force names are better, and its leaning towards using the built-in paramaters rather than a tf-hook hack for the first issue. Have we gotten the list of task force pages yet? Anything else stopping us from implementing this? Standing by to editprotected... –xeno (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters is being populated with the pages using deprecated parameters. This will require us to keep a small part of code for the new template until that category is emptied, at which time the code can be removed. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no one really commented on the 1st change except for me and some other guy who said he was indifferent to it. I don't find that leaning towards the built-in-parameters. My argument still stands that the hook allows for a more prominent displaying of the notices, along with the ability to customize, and the ability to place the notices wherever we need them. If the image is not prominntly displayed, an editor could skip over it without a second thought. It's useful to do it this way.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it not prominent? With the template fully expanded with every parameter, of course it is just another small line, but in a real article, there will normally be 2-5 lines (class, importance, task forces, and notices) and it will be easily noticeable. Also, why would we need to customize it? And even if we ever did need to customize it, we can change it back to the task force hook at any time. It just isn't worth the extra code right now. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. K.I.S.S. &c. –xeno (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question, what is the difference between the two parameters we're looking at right now? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

For the needs-infobox & attention? None. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is usability. So if the names are the same, the only differences are icon size and a bit or extra code.

On one side, a larger icon size would make the items more prominent. However, the size difference is almost negligible, and other icons would draw attention to them just as easily. On the other side, the full task force names do bloat the template more and trimming code here and there certainly wouldn't hurt. But talk pages rarely have enough templates on them to max out the transclusion limits, so template size isn't that big an issue.

To be honest, I don't think the pros and cons carry much weight one way or the other. Are there any other factors to consider? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

The fact of the matter is, if someone is going to do a major cleanup effort on an article, they are going to trawl through the categories, not by some random-chance of seeing a slightly bigger "needs-infobox" or "attention" icon. Simplicity in our template by using built-in parameters is a greater net benefit. –xeno (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotected}}

The description of the request can be found below. The request is for the code in {{WP VG}} to replace the code used by {{WikiProject Video games}}, in an effort to get the template to use {{WPBannerMeta}}. Full consensus for the transfer was formed here. The need to transfer is very urgent, as it is needed to start a large, 5-month spanning project that will involve fixing 20,000+ articles/pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanlip (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the rush? –xeno (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you would look at the template you just added, it specifically states to request edits that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus, neither of which apply. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• If we replace the code (it actually needs to be histmerged) won't we lose the ability to track down the task force tagged articles easily? We should generate those lists first. –xeno (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll put in a bot request unless yours can handle it xeno. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yea, that's beyond my limited expertise. –xeno (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter. I'm still going through all of the articles. No point in making a bot if someone is willing to do the work themself. And the rush is to get it done quickly. I have the next 3 days free, so if it can be done quickly, I can quickly begin the project.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a request here. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary I just said. There's no point in making a bot if there's a person willing to perform the task, as humans are more reliable than bots, and that I can personally check every article for problems, glitches, changes of class, etc. Bots can not do this.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the Bot request has been Rejected. Now onto the real issue of resolving the naming problem and getting an admin.  Dylanlip  (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't rejected, just answered in a way that at least I did not think of. Let's keep the task force naming discussion in the above section though to make it easier. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a bot is less reliable than a human. It's noble that you want to sort through all these articles, but it should not be necessary to manually convert data from one template to another. I understand wanting to fill in and update information in the new template, but this can be done in parallel with the bot. A one-shot bot conversion will get the template in place more quickly and get users familiar sooner than a manual approach. —Ost (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the idea of my project running parallel to the bot makes a lot of sense. The bot could initially replace the code, then I could check each instance for errors, change of class, importance, task forces, etc. I misunderstood before; I thought that the bot would completely replace my job, but this idea helped me understand that. Thanks!  Dylanlip  (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot has Y Done all of the grunt work, feel free to do the stuff that requires human attention at your convenience =) –xeno (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I found something odd. When they transferred over the template, they forgot to replace all instances of Template:WP VG with Template:WikiProject Video games in the Task force hook parameters, which caused the remaining 23 or so task forces and alerts to work only on {{WP VG}}, but not this one. Simply replace the instances of WP VG with WikiProject Video games to solve the problem.  Dylanlip  (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good eye - Fixed. –xeno (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete

Since the above discussion had gone stale, I've gone ahead and completed the merge, using the expanded task force names, and the built in parameters. I'm going to leave the template unprotected for the time being, in case any changes need to be made. Poke me when its ready to be protected. –xeno (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks, MrKIA11. I've re-established the protection for now (forgot what day it was), so just throw up a edit-protected request or let me know if further changes are neded. –xeno (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• In case anyone is curious, there are 8821 transclusions of {{Cvgproj}} and 1046 transclusions of {{Vgproj}}. Too many to change as there is no visible effect; however, if someone is already re-assessing those articles then it could be updated to {{WikiProject Video games}}. Nil on {{WPVG}}/{{WP VG}} at the moment. I've deleted all other redirects. –xeno (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Opinion: Scrap WPVG and WP VG. I see no reason to add more redirects when the more semantic name is already in use on the majority of pages. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've deleted {{WP VG}} but I'm going to leave {{WPVG}} up for now, because 1) it's been in place since 2006 and 2) it provides easy access to reach this template and talk page, even if it isn't used in transclusions. No prejudice to RFD if someone really wants it gone =] –xeno (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lost functionality?

It seems that linking directly to the peer review subpage is no longer available (it was before, yes?). Also, the ability to point an old-peer to a different location (as described here) is lost. Fixed at [1], still in place at Talk:Everybody's Golf (series) (formerly "Hot Shots Golf (series)"), Talk:Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), Talk:Sega Mega Drive. if you want to try to re-add the functionality. –xeno (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please re-add functionality lost described above by changing:

 |tf 3={{{old-peer|}}}
  |TF_3_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive
  |TF_3_NAME            = old-peer
  |TF_3_IMAGE           = Cvg peerreview icon.png
  |TF_3_TEXT            = This article has an '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive|archived]]''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG peer review]] that may contain ideas for improvement.
  |TF_3_MAIN_CAT        = Old requests for CVG peer review

to

 |tf 3={{{old-peer|}}}
  |TF_3_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive
  |TF_3_NAME            = old-peer
  |TF_3_IMAGE           = Cvg peerreview icon.png
  |TF_3_TEXT            = This article has an '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/{{#ifeq:{{{old-peer}}}|yes|{{PAGENAME}}|{{{old-peer}}}}}|archived]]''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG peer review]] that may contain ideas for improvement.
  |TF_3_MAIN_CAT        = Old requests for CVG peer review

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't seem to have fixed things (see the three examples above I've now changed to "old-peer"). –xeno (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I inaccurately assumed how the template worked. Apparently no matter what is input for old-peer=input, it is defaulted to yes or no. I will continue to look for a fix, but in the meantime, that edit can be undone or not. No difference. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed This should do for now (added paramater "old-peer-location"). –xeno (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sandbox for a few fixes which include:

1. The "task forces" that weren't actually task forces (i.e. requests for screenshot and cover) are now considered notes.
2. The peer review parameters now use the peer review hook, and support the specification of a location, by only using one parameter.
3. The collaboration parameters now use the collaboration hook.

Not sure if all of these changes are unanimous, but some can be used and others not. And if anyone cares about size, it saves about 1,400 bytes. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. What changes will the bot need to make for #2? –xeno (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reason they were used in the task force parameters was because {{WPBannerMeta}} only supports up to 5 notes/alerts. I've actually tried it before in {{WP VG}}, and it didn't show all the notes.  Dylanlip  (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we're only using 3? –xeno (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot will not have to make any changes for #2, the three pages that are effected can be changed back manually to old-peer=page name. As far as the notes go, there were originally 7, but since the peer and collaboration parameters were changed to their own hooks, there are now only 3. There is also a hook for additional notes if we prefer to go that route. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please copy the sandbox. Also, was the edit agreed on anywhere? It basically just made the task forces show up in the template header, but is the general consensus that we want that? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done... I'll ping happy-melon if you haven't already. –xeno (talk)

Thanks for pinging me, Xeno. The sandbox edit included all the fixes I made, as best I can determine, just in a different order. Good work, MrKIA11! The only thing omitted was, as you say, the tfnested hooks which add the taskforce name to the collapsed display. If you decide you want them (and of course you don't have to, although the majority of projects do use them) just dig the code out of my version and add them on |HOOK_NESTED=. Nice template! Happy‑melon 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Taskforce Names in Header

Great, so now about the nested hook. Do we want it?

• Neutral - It doesn't matter to me, I just like to have consensus, as not having it can lead to crazy arguments down the road. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New Class Images

I hope everyone loves the new class images for template! :D They were for a large update for WPBannerMeta!! I don't think it has ended yet, as it probably will include adding symbols for normal classes a s well.  Dylanlip  (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ALL classes now have the icon functionality enabled for them!!! I personally think they look splendid.  Dylanlip  (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am decidedly not a fan of any of the images. They take up too much space with multiple task forces and are not used except for 'pretty' factor. The same could be achieved with the class images in CSS. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Priority vs. Importance

The paramater calls for "importance", should we be renaming all the "Priority" verbiage to importance? –xeno (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That problem has to be brought up here. They may be able to make a hook for that.  Dylanlip  (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sandbox to go back to importance. I think that is better since all other VG pages refer to it as importance, not priority. As a side note, the sandbox also removes the old parameter checking since the category is now empty. Any problems? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please copy the sandbox, which reverts back to importance and removes the old parameter checking. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done it. Please create the categories, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created the categories, deleted the old ones, will the bot Assessment 1.0 automatically pick up the new names and fix our matrix? –xeno ^talk 18:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It should do. We'll find out on the next bot run. By the way, do you guys want to define the NESTED parameters, so that the taskforces display on the collapsed version? (Note that the tfnested hook is needed for the additional ones.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to not use them. IMO, just the WikiProject should be in the title. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

MAIN_CAT paramater

Our previous template did not category every page (see User talk:Xeno/sandbox) into Category:WikiProject Video games as the new code does. If we are going to do this, shouldn't the category be Category:WikiProject Video games articles [2]? Personally I think the MAIN_CAT should blank, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. –xeno (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this template goes on more than just articles.  Dylanlip  (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's why my vote is for leaving it blank. Right now it has polluted the main project category and I can't even see the subcategories for some reason. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why is this template being labeled as a WikiProject Video game article? Look below. You can't blank it. Otherwise, it'll go to that.  Dylanlip  (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanked, and notice how it no longers is in either of the two above mentioned categories. –xeno (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Now the only thing categorizing is the class and importance/priority.  Dylanlip  (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I could be wrong leaving it blank. Is there a good reason to have every tagged page housed in a single category? (WP Football does, for example) –xeno (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the "...articles" as a main_cat as it seems to be the standard... Other projects don't seem to mind that it's populated by more than just "articles". –xeno (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Other projects don't seem to mind" I mind. I don't like the fact that over 1200 categories under our wing are all now called articles.  Dylanlip  (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for a single category for everything. The categories by class and importance/priority are good as it is. No other main categories are needed.  Dylanlip  (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(← Unindent) Personally, I think Wikipedia has too many categories. I don't see the need to add another if it is not needed. The quality and importance categories should catch all article pages, and the number of Project pages is small enough we can maintain it with category codes at the bottom of pages. That's just me though.

Also, since Template:WPBannerMeta gives the option of having a main category or not, I think the decision is up to us. If it works for them, great. If it's something we want, great too. But I don't think it's anything we have to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

The benefit I see is that it allow someone to build a list of every single page in the project's scope. –xeno (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A list of project pages or article pages? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Well it would be every single page tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}}, which could then be filtered for article/projectspace/etc. Though, I suppose the same thing could be accomplished by simply querying what pages transclude it. –xeno (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is what can we do with such a list; what would we use the information for? If we don't plan on using the category aside from just having it, then I think its best to forgo it and not put the strain on the servers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough. Blanked until someone can come up with a reason to have every page under a single category. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What the crap

What the crap happened? Am I the only one who thinks this new code is inferior? For example, why in the hell are templates allowed to have a priority rating? How does that help anything? By the nature of the template we can't stop people from assessing articles as NA, and now we have to dig through that huge category to fix them. It also doesn't seem to sort by namespace automatically, but I'm not an expert. Is this the well-developed consensus? Oh dear... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates should be assessed as NA and will be automatically if you don't assign a rating (see the top of this page), if someone is giving them a priority rating, ask them to stop... I'm seeking approval for my bot to do WikiProject tagging so if articles get put as priority=NA I can mass-fix them. As far as the new code, I believe most wikiprojects are making the switch to WPBannerMeta... –xeno (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New task force

Could the new Dungeons & Dragons task force be added to the template? The image could be Rpg_video_game.svg. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the sandbox to add this task force, but should the parameter be D&D or Dungeons&Dragons. The subpage is D&D, but the full name is obviously Dungeons & Dragons. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D should be fine for the parameter, as long as the corresponding title is "This article is supported by the Dungeons & Dragons task force". — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please copy the sandbox. It enables the D&D parameter for the task force. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done --MASEM (t) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Space in Task Force

The newest task force, id Software, has a space in the parameter, but all of the other task force parameters are space-less. IMO, all of them should be the same. Should we change the new task force, or the old ones? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would personally prefer "id Software", but that's a lot more work than "idSoftware". For which we could bot it and not have a problem either way, in which case it simply takes extra time. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Update link

Small request that any admins can fill—update the link in the "portal" thing from Portal:Video game to Portal:Video games. Thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewording the cover request sentences

I was just thinking that the cover request needs to be rewording from "A request for box art or an application icon has been made to help better illustrate the article." to changing the "application icon" part to logo as it seems to be more relavent in what is used as the infobox image. Salavat (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference library

{{editprotected}} Please copy the sandbox to fix the following issues:

• Added BioWare taskforce
• Changed application icon to logo
• Changed Magazine Archive to Reference library

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done the request, not sure about the question. –xeno^talk 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fastest editprotected response I've ever seen. Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pays to have an admin on the payroll ;> –xeno^talk 20:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the magazine parameter be changed to something like reference? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to update the parameter from magazine to reference. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that not affect any existing uses? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to find the few pages that use magazine and change them. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlus task force

{{editprotected}} Please copy the sandbox to add the new Atlus task force. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. I just added it to the end, hope that's okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think alphabetical is much better. The sandbox is already changed so you can just copy and paste if you don't mind. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to me removing all the unused parameters from the code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Which parameters are unused? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All the ones which are undefined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean the ones like task force image parameters but don't have an image? OK, I removed them from the sandbox. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All done. I don't really understand why this project uses taskforce options in the banner, because you don't use them to categorise any of the articles ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to categorize via task force? The link back on any given talk page suffices; we use it to pull in contributors who stumble onto the talk pages of our articles. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but usually taskforces like to be able to see which articles are within their scope, so that they can prioritise the work, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, here I am arguing against a past self. I have previously advocated for categories based on task forces (only as far as Category:Sega task force articles). Wow, why am I arguing against myself?
I agree, we should add the task forces. It's been discussed multiple times, and there is at least consensus for that, if that is possible. We don't need a breakdown of the task force's quality/importance. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

← I've seen some projects that use a task-force importance, but I think it's overkill. Categories would be nice... –xeno^talk 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

another new taskforce

Sorry to bother you guys, but could the Soul series task force be added to the template? File:SOUL-taskforce.png should work for the icon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

new task force

Could you add the Dragon Quest task force WP:DQ to the list? Right now there is no icon.陣内_Jinnai 03:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys trying to compete with {{WPAUSTRALIA}} for number of taskforces? Added both. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Faction task force

{{editprotected}} Please copy the sandbox to add the new Red Faction task force. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold. I don't believe that Red Faction was discussed on the main talk page, and should be first before addition. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just assumed since it was already added to the sidebar. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

N Not done Re-request after you guys discuss then :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

{{editprotected}} Could you change all |QUALITY_SCALE=extended to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Book-class. This will enabled the book-class for WPVG. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Grah, e/c. Apparently you missed one MSGJ :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You wait all day for an admin and then two come along at once ;) Thanks for fixing my omission! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Retro games task force

{{editprotected}} A new task force has been created: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Retro games. There is currently no designated icon, but the other appropriate template changes would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Y Done MrKIA11 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Retro task force has decided on an icon: File:Retro games logo.png. Could it be added to the template? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Y Yes, it can. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested change

{{editprotected}} I've made a new icon with vector graphics instead of the old bitmapped thingy. So if you please can change
|TF_1_IMAGE = Commandandconquer.PNG
to
|TF_1_IMAGE = CNC Task Force icon.svg
it would be great. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Task force request

Can someone add the Indie Task Force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Indie) to the list, the parameter we want to use is Indie=yes. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Possible formation of a Adobe Flash task force? for more info. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequested}}. SixthAtom (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, you need to provide the exact info we need to make the edit. We can't go comb through all the sections of a long talk page to figure out what to do, when that's what you should have done for us. Admins aren't necessarily template experts. As an example, take a look at Template talk:Convert/updates - form your request like that, and we can help. I'll leave your request up - you may get lucky. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editrequested}} Here is the exact new source markup: [3]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Strategy games

Please enable a flag for the strategy task force, so we can get rid of Template:WikiProject Strategy games. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, once this flag is enabled, we can have a bot set it for articles containing both templates, then removing the strategy template. The rest of the articles will have to be sorted manually. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Done --PresN 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation and Insomniac

{{edit protected}} Please add PlayStation and Insomniac task force so we can get rid of the {{WikiProject PlayStation}} banner since I have work some in the sandbox, since both have converted into task forces of WP:VG in February. Also, please remove the Super Smash Brothers task force, since Super Smash Brothers task force has been merged into Nintendo task force. JJ98 (Talk) 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that two days ago User:Rich Farmbrough edited this template to change the category Category:Video games articles needing attention to Category:Video game articles needing attention. (He should probably have discussed this first.) The last change reverted this; was this intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably, I think this was intentional. No worries. I am off to remove the {{WikiProject PlayStation}} and add a task force for WP:VG myself. I am going to add {{Tdeprecated}} tag on the PlayStation WikiProject banner, similar to {{WikiProject Space}} which was deprecated back in March, fowling the abolishment of WP:SPACE back in December. JJ98 (Talk) 12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me changing the PlayStation parameter from Playstation to PlayStation (capitalize the 'S')? I'll update any existing Playstation calls. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please collapse "Things you can help with" by default

Resolved: Looks like a problem on my end. I apologize for the interruption. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the "Things you can help with" section is expanded by default? When I to go an article's talk page, I want to participate in a discussion about that article, not be spammed with some project's giant task list. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is collapsed by default for me. I'm not sure if that's a preference thing. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I tried later with another browser and it is now collapsed. Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I can see why that would be annoying. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

imagedetails

Could you please add the parameter imageneeded to the template so that cases were a specific screenshot is requested it can be documented without having to duplicate the request with the {{reqscreenshot}} template, as for example with Talk:Tetris Attack. Source code done in Template:WikiProject Video games/sandbox.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove two task forces (editprotected)

{{editprotected}} I boldly redirected the Suikoden task force as a part of the project cleanup, and the Destroy All Humans! task force was deleted today. I am requesting removal of these two from the template. What should be the correct code can be found in the Template:WikiProject Video games/sandbox, though my second edit there is welcome for review. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that Ruslik dealt with one of them, but am still requesting a full sync from the sandbox to remove the other. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)