Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 404: Line 404:


Thanks! –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I had requested a peer review for the [[Kirby (character)]] article. One of the suggestions included "contact(ing) the most relevant WikiProject" for help in making the article a good article once again. Is there anyone here willing to help out with the article? --[[User:Newimagekirby|Newimagekirby]] ([[User talk:Newimagekirby|talk]]) 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== Kirby Article Help ==


I had requested a peer review for the [[Kirby (character)]] article. One of the suggestions included "contact(ing) the most relevant WikiProject" for help in making the article a good article once again. Is there anyone here willing to help out with the article? --[[User:Newimagekirby|Newimagekirby]] ([[User talk:Newimagekirby|talk]]) 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I had requested a peer review for the [[Kirby (character)]] article. One of the suggestions included "contact(ing) the most relevant WikiProject" for help in making the article a good article once again. Is there anyone here willing to help out with the article? --[[User:Newimagekirby|Newimagekirby]] ([[User talk:Newimagekirby|talk]]) 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:50, 30 June 2011

Shortcut

Simplifying the Video Games project

A recent discussion on WP:MILHIST about simplifying their project structure and departments[1] made me think about whether a similar eye towards our own project might be in order. I'd say on first look that we're nowhere near as byzantine as MILHIST and never will be, owing to our demographics, but it might still be a good idea to see what departments are working, what are just a drain, and how we can trim down that looong VG sidebar to the right on this page. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what could be taken out except for maybe Video game images, which could be turned into a "guideline" instead of a "task force". Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Inactive_project_cleanup#Current would be useful for cleaning up inactive projects and task forces. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blake on the VG images department; it's pretty inactive. Perhaps the Assessment department could be streamlined as well. Our internal peer review system has bothered me for quite awhile, as many of the articles placed there receive less reviews than those in the larger peer review pool. Finally, I think our Reference library could do with some streamlining and standardizing to increase its ease-of-use. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say drop the assessment department- a seperate VG peer review made sense a few years ago, when you'd be much more likely to get a VG editor that knew what they were talking about as opposed to just crickets and an auto-review at regular PR, but in more recent times the local PR has dried up while general PR has gotten stronger. MILHIST seems to be coming to the same conclusion. We seem to be doing a good job with linking PRs from the main template (by which I mean GamerPro64 and MrKIA11 do a good job), so dropping the work of transcluding the PRs onto another page seems like a good idea to me.
As to other sidebar links, I don't think we need the "archive/history" subpage links for Assessment and Collaboration since you can get to them through the parent pages and practically never need to visit on their own. --PresN 20:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also probably getting rid of the talk page links that don't actually support discussions would probably just direct people better. If we get rid of the PR we should prolly have a full-fledged discussion on it--but either way I'd want to wait and see what the dissolution of the MILHIST PR does to the peer review pool. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that there is much to be learned from MILHIST - their articles almost always overlap with other WikiProjects. Take Hundred Years' War, for example - is covered by WikiProjects: Middle Ages, European History, France and Military History. So if MILHIST simply went away, it wouldn't really prevent many articles from being reviewed. But videogames are different - it's relatively rare for our articles to be covered by other WikiProjects. Super Mario 64, for example is a majorly important article - arguably comparable to Hundred Years' War in importance - and this WikiProject is the only one that covers it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that calling Super Mario 64 as important as the Hundred Years' War is pretty ridiculous, honestly. Anyway, MILHIST is probably the most organized WikiProject in existence, and none of the other WikiProjects that cover those subjects are even 1/10th as productive. There would not be nearly as many high quality articles without MILHIST, and, because of that, I think we should take as much as we can from them. We're one of the top WikiProjects, but we still fall well below them in terms of our number of quality articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the actual hundred years was was less important than some video game...that would be ridiculous. (Although considerably more people played SuperMario than were involved in the hundred years war!) What I meant was that their respective articles are both "High" on their importance scales. I bet Mario gets more wikipedia readers than hundred years war too! SteveBaker (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I imagine Joan of Arc might love Super Mario but would be miffed that she would get relegated to a footnote after discussing the N64 :P My point isn't to say we should do everything like Milhist--we are different projects with different cultures and far different editorial issues in general--but some overlap in common practices make sense to appraise. Keeping bureaucracy down is always good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really my point. The huge overlap in coverages between MILHIST and other projects permits a different approach than this project requires. The importance scale is the means by which projects like the ones to put the important bits of Wikipedia on DVD-ROM choose which articles to keep and which they don't have space for. Those kinds of projects need our help in identifying which video game topics are important and which are not. Super Mario 64, for example is important because it was really the first of a new genre - the 3D platformer. Giving it a "High" importance rating helps other people to understand that it's an important article. That MILHIST doesn't rate articles by importance is much less critical because other WikiProjects can pick up the slack for them. We don't have that luxury. SteveBaker (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the discussion going-
The ideas on the table are:
Thoughts or other suggestions? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Agree with all the above (obviously :P) although I think we should hold off on the PR because I don't want to potentially dump more work on Brian, Finetooth, and the other reviewers at PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the peer reviews, as they can be helpful for in-house reviews in which peer reviewers outside the project (or the video gaming realm) may not understand how some things may be organized. However, I do agree on the images page, though that was not much of a "task force" per se; that can certainly be rewritten as a useful guideline, as we do deal with a lot of non-free images here. –MuZemike 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would redirect VGI to WP:VG/GL#Screenshots and cover art, myself. Were we thinking to remove all of the subpage links, or particular ones? Which, if the latter? --Izno (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a separate page of guidelines for working with video game related images would be helpful. We could explain some of the more subtle nuances to selecting and evaluating images for articles.
As far as the removing links from the side bar, I recommend:
  • Naming convention is already briefly covered in the article guidelines
  • Assessment Archive and Bot log are also linked on the main assessment page. Requests can stay for ease of use though.
  • The Peer review Archive and Collaboration Collaboration are similar to the Assessment Archive.
  • If the image department becomes a guideline, I'd treat it like the Naming convention and remove it.
  • Popular pages is linked twice. Once under Articles and again under WikiProject.
  • Wikipedia 0.7 workshop has come and gone. I think we should remove it.
Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • With regard to our internal peer review system, I'd argue that our excellent to-do list removes any concern about VG editors not being able to locate articles to review. Also, very few of our internal peer reviews actually receive meaningful feedback, but the ones placed in the overall pool often do. For example, I recently weighed my options when putting an article up at peer review, and decided that the external reviews were my best bet; I've seen too many internal ones sit idle. Sure enough, I received an excellent review from WPVG's own User:PresN, User:David Fuchs and User:Prime Blue, which shows the power of the to-do list. Even if they hadn't reviewed it, though, the article at least had a chance of being seen by a random non-VG editor in the overall pool. Personally, I don't plan on using the WPVG peer review system for any future articles; it seems simultaneously redundant and less efficient than the standard one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what's up? I've been working on some non-VG articles related to my degree under my real name account. But, on WP:VG, what about:
  • Fold WP:VG/RL into WP:VG/S, or the list on WP:VG/S into WP:VG/RL.
  • I'd ponder killing assessment alltogether. There's two points to assessing articles: (1) allowing articles to get feedback and editors to a sense of achievement, and (2) the whole Wikipedia 1.0 thing. PR, GA and FA do good enough on both accounts. Most people ignore assessment and go for GA/FA anyway. Is there anything that requires assessment? In absence of distinct benefits, concentration (into GA and PR) is good. If the VG editors that assess stuff now go for GA and PR via the to-do list no good stuff is lost. And that's coming from me, who's done a ton of assessment.
  • Kill collaboration of the week (.. again). I think we have to realise most people in WP:VG edit a small subset of articles they have a special interest in. The project can help with guidelines and common problem-solving/tips, but I can't see it working much...
User:Krator (t c) 14:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we put all the various proposals to a vote then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like a straw poll to get the discussions going? Or jump right into them like in sub sections of this thread? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I think the article request section should be given the heave-ho. Relatively few project members are interested in it, since it requires spending time writing articles about subjects which you may not give a tinker's cuss about, the backlog's getting ever longer, and a large minority (if not majority) of requests are for non-notable games etc. which aren't suitable for creation, or articles which have been deleted (usually on reasonable grounds). Someoneanother 22:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images department to image guideline

Let's get a consensus about switching the department to a guideline. Please state your position (support or oppose) and a reason why. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like we have consensus. I assume we'll let this sit until all the discussions are done. But someone is welcome to take it upon themselves prior to that. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Retire VG peer review

Next up is retiring our project's peer review. This might be a polarizing topic, so please be concise and assume good faith. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ending the COTW (again)

If no one minds, I'll start things up again. The question: should we retire the Collaboration of the Week drive? Please state your opinion below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I don't even remember COTW being consensusly brought back in the first place. However, it should be best to retire it since no one really works on the articles. GamerPro64 22:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - unfortunately. I think we all like the idea of COTW, but when it died the first time in 2007 it was completely un-supported, and within weeks of setting up the automated version in 2009 it was dead again (Quest (gaming), the 7th one, got 3 edits during its week.) Time to put it back to rest; there's just not enough people who are lacking articles to work on. --PresN 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - In the end we all work on the articles we like. A collaboration is good in theory, but it's just not realistic. --Teancum (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The whole point of automating it was to allow people who suddenly decide they want to participate one day to do just that, without the rest of us having to establish the whole process again. Because every time we get rid of it, people keep demanding it back again. COTW in its current form involves virtually zero bureaucracy (we have no obligation to post diffs, although some kind person seems content to do so). I wouldn't be entirely opposed to repositioning the page so that the random article selector can be used for another similar purpose though. It's a really useful feature, and I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that no one uses it. --Dorsal Axe 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was leaning towards removal for this until I read Dorsal Axe's comment, which brings up a good point. The only point I can see against the Collab is that it's aesthetically in the way on the To-do list. Overall it brings more positives than negatives. It drew attention to Ultima Underworld. I would probably have never worked on Joust (video game) if it hadn't been the weekly collab. I'm sure there are more cases, albeit a small amount. The current form has helped and eats little of the resources we're trying to consolidate. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • That's a fairly convincing argument. Perhaps it could be repositioned on the To-Do list to look at little better, though. If we're going to continue featuring the COTW, why not give it a center-top position like in the old days? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anyone have anything else to add? If not, this section of the poll will fall under "no consensus", and we'll move on to the next point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would it be no consensus if there are three Supports and one Oppose? It would be more close to the retirement side on the scale. GamerPro64 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsal's argument convinced Guyinblack and myself, even though we didn't technically "vote". That makes 3 supports and 3 opposes, meaning that we're leaning toward a no-consensus resolution unless other people show up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason I proposed bringing the COTW back in the first place was that there were several old failed collaboration projects laying around, and I thought the biggest problem was the nomination process. I'll be honest, I was more interested in implementing the automated selection than I was with the actual editing. I would not object if editors find this process counter-productive. but it is relatively harmless as-is. When it first started falling into disrepair, it was suggested that we switch to once-a-month. If this is kept open, even if this is a "no-consensus", I think a month is a more realistic timeframe. Also, if this is not already done, having the bot post a message on this talk page will help draw attention (I think a single unanswered post will not be archived). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the recent comments, I'll officially !vote oppose. It is not harming the project's efforts; it's only not meeting the intended aspirations, which most of us would categorize as unrealistic for our project culture. I think Dorsal and Johnny's suggestions to reposition it on the todo list and tweak the format would help the process and assuage people's complaints. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • I agree with everything you just said. I'd also like to reiterate my belief that the new COTM (not weekly anymore, per Johnny) should be placed center-top on the To-Do list, like it was many, many years ago. I've never liked its current placement; it makes it seem like an afterthought. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's been tried many ways, but unofficial collabs of two or three or a small group of editors has always worked better with tangible results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the article requests page

The discussion above was more complicated than expected, but it looks like everyone's had their say. Let's move on to another issue: ending support for internal article requests. As always, please state your opinion below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: I've seen some good article come out of this page. And some of them may have never been created without the request. But the lack of attention makes me think that this would be best retired and tagged historical.
    On a side note, do we have way to track all our historical pages once they are removed from the side bar? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. --Dorsal Axe 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose closing. It may seem unused at first glance, but in the past year I've created at least a couple of articles based on requests that have been on that page. It's a great way to also draw in people interested in video games on Wikipedia who might not be so adept at creatin articles themselves. Nomader (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it is good to see what people would want as articles. If these turn out to be un-fillable, then it is good to teach the users why it can't be an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The initial comments are in favor of keeping the page. However, do we have any ideas about how to better maintain it if it is kept? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • I would also like to hear someone's opinion on that. Personally, I don't lean one way or the other on the issue of closing the page; Someoneanother brought it up earlier, and I thought it was important to discuss. However, I've worked on the page's backlog in the past, and it was not easy. More definitely needs to be done to maintain it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Support - Yes, good has come of it, but in the end the overwhelming majority of requests will never have the notability and coverage needed to merit inclusion. There are very few users who request that don't have the ability to create these articles themselves. To say that a few good articles came from it seems irrelevant. I dunno. I just feel like if there's interest in an article and there's coverage it'll get made. All this serves is a place for people too lazy to make articles. Saying it creates less traffic for the AfDs is also wrong - it's such an obscure page that you already need to know a bit about notability, reliable sources and WikiProjects to even find it. --Teancum (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Sorry, but I still think there is some utility behind this page, especially in the fact that it encourages smart article creation. –MuZemike 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mfd Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires

The recent Mfd on the Age of Empires (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires) led to closure as reported by Salvio "At the moment, I'm not seing a consensus to convert this WikiProject into a task force, but this close is not meant to stifle the ongoing discussion on the matter, which I leave to editorial discretion".

Perhaps this project would like to take the initiative here to look after this project, one way or the other? You could make it into a taskforce, or perhaps just make it a redirect here? Regards. --Kleinzach 02:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No talk page messages from a member since 2008. It's dead and gone; I don't even think it should be taskforce-ified. It never had too much activity but it did have some and clearly people worked on AoE articles at some point . I'd say no point in deleting it; should be marked historical, removed from the sidebar, and left in case anyone ever wants to start it up again. --PresN 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done'd the historical preservation part. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. (It's currently marked inactive.) There is also an active project banner with about 40 links. If it's really dead and gone, the normal thing is to make a redirect. (This preserves the edit history etc.) --Kleinzach 05:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, the closure deferred to 'ongoing discussion' (see above) which means that members here can decide what to do with it. --Kleinzach 23:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly redirected the main page and moved the talk page to an archive of WP:VG, and will shortly be removing the uses of the main WikiProject template. And to explain a little further: This is inline with the cleanup we've been doing at the WP:VG/IPC. Generally, we've either deleted or redirected the main pages of video games related WikiProjects (and deleted or archived the talk pages) which have become inactive. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edge - Broken links

The Edge website has just undergone a redesign. Its actually a new back-end system as well as a redesign. The articles and reviews appear to have made it across OK by the looks of things, but the URLs of them have changed.

The easy part: All of the reviews appear to have moved from http://www.next-gen.biz/features/stacking-review to their new location of http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/stacking-review

The hard part: The features (such as A short history of Lucas Arts and The 100 best games to play today) have moved across OK, and are still in the same directory hierarchy, but, their URLs appear to have changed ever so slightly, and in a non-uniform way.

(Old URL on top, new URL underneath)

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/a-short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/the-100-best-games-to-play-today

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today


The "Just to make it more awkward" part: The search function on the site appears to only work for users who are signed in. Not sure if this is by design, or just a bug to do with the move. Accessing content still works OK for non-logged in users, but searching for anything will result in failure.

According to LinkSearch we have 534 links to check. The reviews should be easy with a bit of nifty RegEx, the features look like they may need the manual approach though. - X201 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • *sigh* when will publishers realize that bare URLs are meant to be permanent (even if you provide redirects to the new location...) 500 links (ignoring talk pages ) probably can be easily burned through with a dedicated effort. AWB gives me back only about 350 non-talk article pages, here User:Masem/Edge URL Fix List. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an automatic way of converting citations to WebCite versions? In the same style as Reflinks? - X201 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a bot that's broken and in limbo, but right now you have to doit manually. I have a python script that submits requests and modifies txt versions of articles that I've downloaded, but it tends to get my ip tempbanned from webcite. :) --PresN 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of E3 awards

I thought that the Best of E3 Awards were voted for by canvassing the votes of all (or at least a broad spectrum of) journalists at E3 and then issuing the awards. It turns out that that may not be the case. Non-US journalists are not allowed to participate, and in the weeks before the conference starts publications get private sessions with the games and publishers. The awards are decided upon by 35 websites/magazines. I now feel a bit uncomfortable about the fact that Best of E3 Awards are listed on WP articles. I've read/heard a couple of journalists saying that the winners are decided in the week beforehand, that its just a promotional thing because award stickers look good when the box is on the store shelf and that the judges are schmoozed to death by the publishers. Should we reconsider the awards appearance in articles, and perhaps more importantly, what people think the awards mean? - X201 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I've heard" ... "a couple of journalists" ... "what people think" - come on, man, sources. --PresN 15:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing PresN's comments, we would need sources criticizing the legitimacy of the awards. As it stands right now, most sources tout them as important. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Agree with the above, although in general I don't find the prerelease awards that important to mention in the wake of real reception on release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable for the awards to be US-centric. E3 is an ESA show, and ESA is a US industry association, and the show is primarily for a US audience (most importantly, US retailers). International readers are free to discount the E3 show just as US readers probably gloss over others like TGS. I can confirm that the viewing/voting process is done before the show. This only makes sense, as E3 is only 3 days long, with hundreds of games on the show floor. It's a little naive to even assume that the judging could be performed "live", especially with the noise and crowds. The judges do travel around to publishers' offices to play the demos ahead of time (the Judges' Tour), in comfort and privacy and with regulated time limits. If you were to simply canvass journalists after the show, you'd have no guarantee that they played all the games (they probably didn't), much less to any degree that would make them a good judge of each (they're just looking for points to write in an article). This would bias the results towards the biggest, flashiest games with the most hype, even more so than usual, as that's where the journalists ordinarily spend the lion's share of their time. And of course schmoozing happens, everywhere in this industry and other industries too. So, the E3 awards aren't perfect, but they aren't any less reliable than any other form of award or reception. I see no reason to single them out. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed on History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Based on the AFD discussion of the above article, input is needed to determine if we should move it to History of video game consoles (2010-present) as to avoid the contentious "eighth generation" term until such a time that it is better established. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - A year just isn't a safe qualifier either. Someone will say "Hey, the PS3 was still around in 2010, why isn't it in this list?" Everyone has their own opinions of course. Mine is that we're spending way too much time on semantics in the project and not enough actually improving what's here. There just isn't a solution at the moment. There won't be until the industry starts to categorize WiiU and other new handhelds. Until then this is an appropriate interim solution that will allow us to just put it to rest in the meantime. There's plenty to do elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should happen when lots of editors support a situation which is against the core policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY? Diego Moya (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we clarify, first sentence of the lead, that the year designation is for the year of public release of the consoles described, there's no conflict. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<rant>I agree with Masem's approach as it applies to all our history of video game consoles. The idea of us nailing down defined generations is probably not going to happen since the industry has yet to do so. So many sources conflict as which generation is which.
There is almost no disagreement about generations from the 3-7th generations, though it can be a little fuzzy in the first two generations. The truth is that the term is well used, well sourced, and well established. Of course, the use of the term of the 8th generation is none of these things, though news sources are already calling the Wii U an 8th generation console.LedRush (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a good amount of agreement. But the amount of disagreement still makes nailing down generations on Wikipedia too difficult. It would be a gigantic effort to do it properly, and even then I doubt everyone would be happy with the result. But I digress, I now realize that my rant is too tangential to the topic at hand. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Using academic sources and other RSs, we've already nailed down 1-7 generations. No effort required.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, we don't need to keep approaching the information from a "generational" stand point. A fixed time frame let's us focus on things chronologically. If the PS3 was still around in 2010, then it should be in the 2010-present article. Another example is the PS1, which was introduced in 1994 and discontinued in 2006. Such a system should be in the 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 articles. My two cents.</rant> (Guyinblack25 talk 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
This is going to sound a bit rude, so I apologize ahead of time. In the end this is why I don't bother in these discussions. Those who have been here longer get their way anyway, and in the end tons of time is wasted on things like this where energy can be put elsewhere. I'm fully aware of policies and such, but in the end it just ends up being how one group spins a policy to work for them over another. It comes off awful WP:BITEy, but I suppose nothing can be done about that. It's all just so frustrating that I tend to stay out of it as "having a voice" is really just lip service. --Teancum (talk)
Possibly true, but this is actually the one counterexample- every time this comes up, we all agree that the "generations" thing is bad and come up with nice solutions to "fix" it, then never actually do it because the history articles are a pain to write. --PresN 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't all agree. In fact, I've never even seen agreement that the "generations" thing is bad. It works, it is used by our readers, academic sources and other RSs. Easy peasy.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's stuff like this that makes me disagree with reasoning like that... Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you had bothered to read the discussion, you'd see that I was referring to the the term "generation" and its use through generations 1-7. I have conceded that the term 8th generation is nascent, and I only find its use in connection with the Wii U and the unnamed nex-gen Sony and MS consoles.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we did come to an agreement. That I think it wasn't the best doesn't matter. You agreed with Masem about a change to move the articles and remove the controversial "generation" label (btw, if it wasn't controversial, it wouldn't keep coming up). IMO its not enough, but it sounds like from the last few statements you aren't even willing to implement the compromise you agreed upon.陣内Jinnai 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACs needing attention

Resident Evil 2 hasn't had any activity in five days, and could really use more reviews. Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri also needs more feedback—particularly, SandyGeorgia requested source checks for adherence and/or plagiarism. If anyone has time, please review one or both of these articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done been source reviewed now. RE2 still needs a source review and a plagiarism check, as well as some substantive reviews- I've long suspected that the FAC delegates, especially Sandy, completely ignore one-sentence supports prior to any long ones. --PresN 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again. And you're right; RE2 could do with some heftier reviews. The meat of my review came during the peer review, so my cut-and-dried support on the FAC page doesn't carry much weight. Anyone got time to look at the article? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 2 needs a source review for close paraphrasing/accurate representation/plagiarism, would be nice if someone found the time. Prime Blue (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can jump in today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box improvement suggestion

Could we perhaps add a '<-Preceded by... Succeeded by->' field? When a game is in a series it would be a very handy way for the reader to see how the series evolves and improves according to technology. There are some games such as Supreme Commander which aren't straight sequels but 'spiritual successors', so the link between the old and the new needs highlighting even more in these cases. I make this suggestion simply because I frequently go to the info box naturally expecting to to be there. For an example, I believe similar fields exist in the Aircraft wikiproject. In this info box for the AM-35 engine, it lists a field for the next model, or successor to the engine (developed into):

AM-35
Type Liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine
Manufacturer Mikulin
First run October Template:Avyear
Major applications Ilyushin Il-2
Developed into Mikulin AM-37

I'd suggest placing the new field underneath the 'Series' field of the Video game info box. I'd also suggest putting the 'Preceded by' field above the 'Succeeded by' field, as some game titles are very long and placing the fields side-by-side could compromise the box's width:

Developer(s)
Publisher(s)
Director(s)
Producer(s)
Composer(s)
Platform(s)
Release date(s)
Genre(s)
Mode(s)
Rating(s)
Series
Preceded by
Succeeded by

What do you guys think? Autonova (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These fields were part of the infobox for a time, and they were dropped because they got out of hand. Since then, it has been suggested many times ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), but it is usually opposed on the same grounds: no clear successors/predecessors when dealing with spin-offs, ports, rereleases, remakes, re-imaginings, same-day releases, etc., the fields cause unneeded edit wars, and navigation is provided by navboxes at the bottom of the articles (which almost all articles for series game have). Prime Blue (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. I'd imagine certain series would be ambiguous and so would cause edit wars, but in those cases wouldn't the field just be hidden and unused, like one or two of the other fields such as 'Media/Distribution'? Surely the majority of game series have a main line of games which would be simple enough. I've been editing for years but I'm obviously relatively new when it comes to this discussion, so I'll leave it. Autonova (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you if we hadn't had so many disagreements over the order of games. It's been our experience that if the field is available, then editors will use it for better or worse. Most games use to have a clear fictional and release chronology, but the spin-off and spiritual sequel trend has grown the last decade, especially in the more prominent series. And since gamers often have strong emotional ties to their favorite series, this mix of elements is unfortunately fodder for edit wars. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Sims Online dispute

At Talk:The_Sims_Online#TSO_Restoration_Project, User:GhostV is arguing that a community of programmers trying to revive The Sims Online should be mentioned in the lead of the article. User:X-Fi6 has held counter to that view, arguing that it isn't notable enough to be placed in the article. He posted a request for outside opinions at the Sims task force, but that's pretty inactive so I thought I'd bring it up here. Comments would be most welcome to solve the dispute. Nomader (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 4 artwork

I found this poster on the Xbox website and it appears to be a poster version of the current artwork for the game cover, should we shrink it and upload it to put on the article? chris†ianrocker90 02:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image-wise, the status quo tends to be: Use the logo until the actual cover art is released. You could use that poster if you want to, although I can't see how it would benefit the article, over the current logo only version. - X201 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be labeled "promotional poster". chris†ianrocker90 23:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promo posters don't really have the same fair use strength as the final art or logo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FUR

Does anyone have a proper FUR for File:Icewind dale 1 box shot.jpg, or can provide a new version with a proper FUR? Thanks! 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was quick!  :) 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This explains why it already had a new FUR by the time I saw the bot notification on my talk page. Thanks, Prime. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot citations (incl. in FAs)

Which is better? [8] or [9]? See also discussion at User talk:Thumperward#Planescape: Torment. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard means of dealing with fiction is that the primary source is always acceptable as references for the plot, as rarely will a third-party source cover the entire work. (That's not to say if you can find third-party stuff, you shouldn't use it - it should always be used). Its also implicit that the core work is the main source for the plot, and thus doesn't need the same density of citations as one would expect in, say, development and reception sections. I'm not a huge fan of dropping tons of quotes from a game to substantiate plot aspects that are obvious as you play through, but do support them on major revelations which may sneak by the user if they're not paying attention, so its a matter of being sufficiently selective. -MASEM (t) 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per some guideline I cant be bothered to find right now, sources are only needed for material which may be challenged. If the content in the plot section has material that may be thought false by some people(IE: Unexpected event which may seem fake), then it should be sourced. Otherwise, general knowledge about the plot probably does not need to be sourced, and is automaticly thought to be sourced to the work itself. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you reckon that just putting a ref to the game itself at the end of each plot paragraph would be sufficient? It would certainly be better than having a quote ref for every sentence. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't even need that, because again, its assumed that the game is the primary work and a reference itself. But if the game provides strong divisions that you can say "this happens in this section of the game", whether its chapters, levels, or the like, that might be good to place after each section that happens in that part. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as fictional work and especially video games are concerned, primary sources (the game itself or manual) are perfectly fine. In fact, as pointed above, even that is not required by WP:V unless contested. No one should demand secondary sources for plot. But being a reference geek, I do prefer cited plot sections, and think in-game quotes are very much suitable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try to cite everything in the article, even the plot. A little extra work, but no one's ever challenged the cited content at a review. I say better safe than sorry in cases like this. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
In my opinion, some kind of plot citation should be required for video game articles. With books, films and comics (static media), for example, the plot is set in stone. However, video games are interactive and therefore flexible. Their plots will always been potential subjects for debate, because no player experiences the same events the same way. Citations allow Wikipedia to remain neutral. Just my two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh....how many games have you played? Outside of maybe Western RPGs, video game plots tend to be pretty static with maybe minor variences in some cases that would hardly affect a plot summary. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to major events, yes. But, technically, any action taken by the player is part of the "story". If we were writing the plot section for a piece of fiction with little-to-no plot—The Dead (short story), let's say—we would focus on small events. He makes small talk at a party; he dances with one person instead of another; he screws up his dinner speech. If I were to write the plot section for a game with a minimal story—Half-Life, let's say—focusing on small events would lead to a subjective description of the plot. For example, let's take the first time Gordon sees a soldier attack a scientist. You actually have two options, even though they aren't specifically stated in game: watch it happen, or kill the soldier before he finishes off the scientist. This small scene, which is technically important to the story, could unfold in two different ways depending on who's playing. Therefore, in order to maintain neutrality, a source is required. If none exist for that specific scene, you use a source to generalize: "Soldiers begin killing scientists". The source could be either secondary or primary, depending on the subjectivity of the game and scene in question. I could give more examples, but I think I've clarified my point well enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on what Jimmy is saying, there are plenty of examples where the plot is not straight forward (Limbo (video game), Braid (video game), and the Silent Hill games come to mind) even if the prevailing perception about games is that they have simple plots. Also, it's arguable that some games are so difficult for the layman that they are not easily verifiable.
Regardless of any argument for citations, the only negative to adding them is that they can be time consuming. And that's never been a strong argument when discussing article quality and strength. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I always cite plot sections with in-game quotes and sources close to the original material, but I might add that this has caused problems on our two current featured article nominations (Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri and Resident Evil 2) because it implies a heavy reliance on primary sources for the whole article. Prime Blue (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just citing descriptive claims "James is the evil villain" is usually enough. If the plot is extremely complex, some more specific citations can be added, but I've never found the need to put more than a few references in most games, unless you're being detailed for a reason such as backstory.陣内Jinnai 01:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox styling tweaks

Please see Template talk:Infobox video game#Styling tweaks for some suggested changes to the infobox which (finally) bring its metrics in line with contemporary infoboxes. Test cases provided. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Irate Gamer

Hi, I know The Irate Gamer is not notable as long time ago but how long time would the page be protected to edit? The Irate Gamer is a popular rip-off of The Angry Video Game Nerd if you not know. Source to The Irate Gamer looks very difficult to find to make him notable like AVGN do.

  • After search for:
    • "The Irate Gamer" interview: [10]
    • "the irate gamer" avgn [11]
    • "The Irate Gamer" wiki [12]

Egon Eagle (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you're asking. If it's not notable, a page shouldn't be created. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) After a quick look, I don't see any reliable secondary sources with broad coverage. Unless someone can give links to usable sources, I highly doubt the article would pass the standards of notability guideline. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait until The Irate Gamer get more attnetion like got interviews for examples USA Today, IGN or other newspaper he cuold be notable. Egon Eagle (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but until then there's no reason for an article. We don't create pages on the possibility something might happen--it pertains to events as well as coverage (WP:CRYSTAL). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 09:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rainfall

Just a heads up that this new page might see a bit of vandalism since it's getting posted on lots of message boards and the campaign is growing. Please keep an eye on it if you can. Thanks! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with japanese names in AH3

I added japanes names in Arcana Heart 3, but I need help with Kamui Tokinomiya, Mei-Fang, Yoriko Yasuzumi & Maori Kasuga.--Sasuke-kun33 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic improvements on the VG barnstar

Whipped this up in my sandbox last night; basically some slight cosmetic improvements to the barnstar design (actually, fairly radical compared to the rest of the barnstar formats). Basically, the wikitable has been replaced with a simple div and span tag, and more regular wikicode is used; also, I changed "VG Barnstar" to "WikiProject Video games Barnstar". Finally, being a fan of rounded borders and box shadows, I implemented both of those to give a better look. Any thoughts before I implement it in Template:Barnstar VG? –MuZemike 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. You could probably run this by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards if you want this to be the default look. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing spoiling it is File:BarnstarCVG.png, it looks a bit blurred. - X201 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes look nice.
On a related note, what about alternate images? I remember creating a composite of the BarnstarCVG.png and a magnifying glass a while ago for our members that make good contributions via article reviews (PR, GAN, FAC, and FLC). I'm sure we could make specific ones for vandalism, copy editing, and other areas too. We could add a simple parameter to switch out the standard image of the VG barnstar. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
File:Video Game Barnstar Hires.png is a better version of that image X201 mentioned above, and I think it's currently an option on Template:Barnstar VG to use either/or; however, we can get rid of that and make usage of this better-quality version mandatory. And, if other images that recognize other specific tasks are out there, as long as we document it properly, I don't see how that can hurt. –MuZemike 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was no consensus for implementing .svg alternatives as the default selection for barnstar images. "Better quality" remains quite subjective. That said, this can be reviewed on individual basis. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an improvement, and I do prefer using the high res star compared to the other one. I'm all for it. Nice work. --Dorsal Axe 10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and implemented the improvements to Template:Barnstar VG; we can make additional changes as needed. While on the topic, is there a reason why we have Template:The Gamer's Barnstar, which is identical to Template:Barnstar VG? Should we redirect that one? (Also note that I just redirected Template:WikiProject Nintendo Barnstar to Template:The Nintendo Barnstar for the exact same reason.) –MuZemike 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a slight problem, and that's the proliferation of those templates (border-radius and the other) embedded in the CSS. Might run afoul of substing guidelines (as I recall barnstars are substed, no?). Might be easier just to include the CSS directly rather than as templates. --Izno (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amend template {{Video game release}} for convenience

Suggest to add some additional lines to the {{Video game release}} template to make multiple-region release dates and publishers easier to add. So far, we always had to insert these manually, that is, simultaneous releases in North America and Europe had to be {{vgrelease|[[North America|NA]] / [[PAL region|PAL]]|January 1, 2000}}. Suggest to replace this with a simple "NAPAL" field for automatic formatting. Would not change the usage of the current template, just makes these special cases easier and faster to insert. Addition to template is in the page source. Prime Blue (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |[reply]

Oh and also allow it to sort on how the data is input to the template. As far as i know it will automatically sort the data as JPN, US, EU, AUS regardless of the order we input into the template, because lets face it not every game is released first in Japan even if the majority are. Salavat (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested automatic sorting by dates about a year ago (at a coding project whose name escapes me), but it was never put into practice. Don't know if we have a template where it's already implemented. If all else fails, separate calls still work for sorting (and might even make more sense as the template is used for publishers in addition to dates). Prime Blue (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started working on a an updated template to do that in my userspace a while ago, but haven't gotten around to finishing it. I know there is another template that kind of does this, but I'm not a fan of it, mainly because of the code, so I'm not going to link to it, but it is there. I feel the original suggestion above is unnecessary, and that a complete re-write would be more beneficial. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your rewrite is finished (this here, I suppose), I still think that implementing the above-mentioned changes (not the automatic order) would be beneficial, as they make work easier for these special cases without changing or hindering the functionality of the template itself. Saves time and is less annoying. Prime Blue (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input please

Just wondering if I could get some input on the following articles: Lara Croft and Maniac Mansion. The discussions are:

Maniac Mansion has been under A-class review for a while now, and I would certainly appreciate some input to finish things up. Lara Croft did not pass it's recent FAC, and one reviewer was kind enough to provide feedback afterward, but we are approaching it from different angles. Outside pairs of eyes would help bring these to a conclusion. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Also note that I am still chugging away on the review (well, more went from a "review" to a "collaboration effort") of Dragon Warrior, which is also up for A-Class review. AFAIK, Jinnai has been busy IRL lately, so I understand the delay there. –MuZemike 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back here somewhat. I think we need another person to come look at MM because there are some issues that its not clear what should be done. I believe one thing while Guyinblack believes another.陣内Jinnai 01:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microids (Software Game Publisher)

I've been doing some researching about the company and found some information to be innaccurate. It appears Encore, the North American distributor of their titles in North America has discontinued many of their products sold in the USA. So the info in the article may be somewhat obsolete. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 Modern Games

[13] - For anyone to add to articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making our project page more accessible to newcomers

I was recently reading up on Wikimedia's strategy, and, particularly during the "Increase participation" section, I started thinking about how it applied to WPVG. In my opinion, we could be doing more to attract new people to our project, particularly with regard to our front page. I'm going to be blunt about a few things, so bear with me. Here are my thoughts:

Our front page is cluttered and disorganized. The page has grown organically over many years, and, unfortunately, it shows. Structurally, it's chaotic and difficult to navigate; the layout doesn't make any kind of coherent sense. I hate to always bring up the comparison, but let's take a look at MILHIST's front page. Now, I realize that we are not MILHIST and never will be. Our project is unique, and this uniqueness needs to be apparent. However, look at how simply they've organized the key subjects that any potential contributor would be looking for. Their purpose, goals and participation sections are concise, and placed above all other project-related information. The page is short and geared particularly toward newcomers. They use tabs to store more specialized material, like their list of high-quality content.
Now look at our page: a long scroll of information that is mostly aimed at project members, with a Participation section beneath our Project Structure section, and buried by a mess of images. Below that, we have a lot of colors (our graph images and assessment box), numbers and lists, organized in no particular fashion. Ask yourself: "If I was a new user looking to contribute, not knowing what to do, hoping to find a bit of guidance without needing to ask on the talk page—how would I react to this page?" My answer is, "With confusion." In my opinion, we are placing a boundary between ourselves and potential newcomers, putting them off before they even have a chance to join.
To elaborate: our project can't continue to exist without contributors. Obviously, VG articles will always be edited; however, the project's infrastructure has been critical to our success up to this point. And, like the Wikimedia strategy page says, not enough is being done to replace the core editors who lose interest in our project. Treatment of vandals and misguided newcomer editors has improved in recent years, even though there's still room for improvement. However, our project page—which many will examine before they make even a single edit—has only gotten more obtuse. Something, I believe, needs to be done.

I apologize if it came off as a rant, but I believe that we need to think this subject. It's critical to discuss how our project functions, how it attracts editors and how it will be sustained into the future. The excellent discussion far above this one, which dealt with streamlining the project, was a great start. More can and should be done, however, and I believe that the topic I've addressed here is an important element. Thanks for your patience during this long post. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for a while I've been worried about pointing users to WP:VG for fear they would get lost/overwhelmed/put off by the front page, and have recently decided to point them directly to WT:VG instead, so at least they can instantly see where they ask a question. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that that it's "organised in no particular fashion". Project related crap at the bottom, "about" sections on top. Could it be reorganised? Sure. Could the wording of everything be simplified? Of course. Much of the actual content extends all the way back to the earliest days of the project. Those were different times, and when we redesigned the page, we mostly carried everything over and simplified it from what the chaos that existed before even that. I am strongly opposed to splitting everything off into subpages like MILHIST though. It's extremely convenient to have everything accessible on one page. The page is useful to me as an editor, and I imagine others feel the same. We need to find a balance that will be accessible to newbies, while accomodating existing editors. The worst thing we could do is alienate our editors here by dumbing it down for everyone else, which is my main concern with this proposal.
Anyway, enough of my blathering. I made a rough start here. Feel free to tweak it. --Dorsal Axe 11:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say, I like the changes you've made! --PresN 18:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You can prolly also chop out "featured" and "good content" at the bottom since they are linked on the side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Dorsal. Improvements could still be made, but you've done a very nice job so far. At the moment, one suggestion comes to mind: perhaps our progress bars could be separated from our "Goals". They've always thrown my eye off in their current location, even though I'm the one who put them there. Perhaps they could have their own section, or at least a unique heading? If we had a few more of them, like the ones MILHIST uses, it'd be a more justifiable split. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the "Related WikiProjects and task forces" bar looks like a heading when placed like that. Perhaps it could be moved to a better location? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to do with that bar. I saw MILHIST had something similar though, and it seems much better than the current list shoved to the side of the page. So I just randomly shoved this in for now to see if everything would look okay. I too am thinking about seperating the progress bars, but again, I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about it. Like you said, there really needs to be more in order to make a seperate section worthwhile. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Everyone is free to tweak and change and test as they see fit.--Dorsal Axe 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a third progress bar could be added: "10% of all articles C-class or above". That would give us an interesting new goal—one that would help us illustrate the superiority of C-class articles over Start- and Stub-class articles. MILHIST has a similar goal, but it's B-class. That's a bit too ambitious for our project, I think. Anyway, I've made some tweaks to your page, but more would be appreciated. My Wikipedia code skills are non-existent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it; for WP:SE I went with 100% above stub, but that's unreasonable for a project this size; I like the idea of 10% C. What's the current percent? --PresN 02:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8.5%, apparently; added a counter to the proposed page, feel free to remove it. --PresN 03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. And thanks for adding the bar; as I said, I'm no code whiz. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more suggestion: I think that the "Make sure you are familiar with the following pages" stuff could be moved up to a subsection of "Participation". It's largely meant for the uninitiated, so it should be placed accordingly. Just my two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can make some more (radical) changes to the main project page, in order to make it more informative for everybody, not just newcomers. Maybe I'll whip up something in my sandbox in a little and pass it along to see what others think. –MuZemike 20:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing the part of cheerleader- There are good ideas popping up here. I'm sure we can find a good balance between serving current members and attracting newcomers. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Is there something we can do about the blur of color at the bottom? The project statistics are out of date and confusing, and not terribly helpful in my opinion, while the articles by quality/importantance is a loud mess, especially since they added the book/cat/disambig/file/etc segments. Is there a better way to display that information? Do we need to have it on the main page? --PresN 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLC input still needed

Hi everyone-

Just so you know, it has been one month since I nominated the article List of songs in Rock Band 3 for featured list status, and there still hasn't been any substantial input apart from the layout notes and other comments from the FLC directors. The article isn't a terribly long, and any input (positive or negative) would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had requested a peer review for the Kirby (character) article. One of the suggestions included "contact(ing) the most relevant WikiProject" for help in making the article a good article once again. Is there anyone here willing to help out with the article? --Newimagekirby (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Article Help

I had requested a peer review for the Kirby (character) article. One of the suggestions included "contact(ing) the most relevant WikiProject" for help in making the article a good article once again. Is there anyone here willing to help out with the article? --Newimagekirby (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=437028261"