Template talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Deprecating peer review and GCOTW[edit]

  • peer – set |peer=yes if the article is currently undergoing a peer review, or to request that the peer review process for this page should be begun.
  • old-peer – set |old-peer=yes if the article has had a peer review which is now archived.
    • This parameter populates Category:Old requests for CVG peer review.
    • old-peer – if the peer review page exists but is not at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}, set this parameter; i.e. if the peer review page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Foobar, set |old-peer=Foobar
  • GCOTW – set |GCOTW=yes if the page is currently the project collaboration.
  • old-GCOTW – set |old-GCOTW=yes (or any non-blank value other than "no", "n", "0" or "¬", such as the dates it was part of the collaboration) if the page was a past project collaboration.

We don't do in-project peer reviews anymore (via this template), but by the sitewide peer review process. We also don't have project collaborations (article of the week) anymore because they weren't popular ideas. I propose that we deprecate the |peer= and |GCOTW= params. If there is consensus for this, we can then discuss whether we deprecate the old peer review and old GCOTW params (likely by first moving the old peer review pages to match the current peer review page title formats and compiling all old GCOTW entries into a list). – czar 15:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

NA priority for drafts[edit]

Template gods, would it be possible to set whatever parent template it is to automatically sort tagged articles in draftspace into the "Draft" quality and "na" priority? Right now they are auto-tagged as "Draft" but then require someone to go around and clean them up as "na" priority. Would be better if the template assumed they were at "na" quality unless someone says otherwise, as is the standard. (Is there a version of {{admin help}} for template editors?) czar 21:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: You say "would be better if the template assumed they were at "na" quality unless someone says otherwise, as is the standard" - what standard? Please give an example of another WikiProject banner template that does this. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@PresN, I forgot where we discussed this—do you remember? @Redrose64, standard cleanup for our project, not standard for other banners (perhaps evidenced by its lack of handling in a parent template). Would you recommend starting a discussion at a different talk page? Or is there any way to set this for just our project? czar 22:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
By "priority", I assume that you mean "importance". If so, it seems as if you wish to override {{Importance mask}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If I am getting this right, then we would use a custom version of {{importance mask}}, which is done by setting |IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage and making a Template:WikiProject Video games/importance subpage that is like {{importance mask}}, except it doesn't treat drafts as articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Importance subpages are used by (amongst others): {{WikiProject Animation}}; {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}}; {{WikiProject Astronomy}}; {{WikiProject Cartoon Network}}; {{WikiProject College football}}; {{WikiProject Comics}}; {{WikiProject Cosmology}}; {{WikiProject Cricket}}; {{Wikipedia Help Project}}; {{WikiProject Nickelodeon}}; {{WikiProject Rocketry}}. At the template's page, look for the second bullet "A custom importance mask is in use." and click that link. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for those links, I couldn't figure out how to even find examples not knowing how they are used. Isn't the issue here that the {{Importance mask}} itself is what treats drafts as articles? That is, if we use the template, then no matter what we do in the subpage, drafts are treated as articles by: {{#switch:{{pagetype|draft=yes|{{{class|}}}}} |draft |article = Unknown |#default = NA }}. So only Help Project from those examples would work, since it doesn't use the template. I guess simplest solution is that we'd first check if the page is a draft and return NA, otherwise pass through to {{Importance mask}}. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar We discussed this at User talk:PresN#Draft importance- we were talking about why all Drafts are "Low" priority, and the reason was that if no priority was set (which it never is by the creator(s)) it was going automatically into Unassessed, so we/I just defaulted to Low. "N/A" makes more sense- Drafts are not live articles, and are not really rated on class and importance any more than a userspace draft would be, we just slap a default on them. Only live articles get real ratings, and as you say there, a Draft->Article space move gets flagged for review if the importance isn't set. --PresN 03:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For information, this default behaviour was changed (by myself) in October 2014 (diff). I can't remember now if it was the result of a discussion somewhere, but I doubt I changed it unilaterally. We can revisit this decision of course. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I can identify out of these archives or WT:VGs is WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 108#Category:Draft-Class video game articles, which precedes the edit by a month and does not mention this as a particular suggested change. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
MSGJ's change is across all project banners so it was likely not local to our project. In any event, as mentioned on PresN's page, I think the main reason for auto-NA classification instead of "unknown" is that draft importance has little bearing on the project and runs the liability of not being reclassified when the draft is mainspaced. If the draft+na classification was automatic, the project banner would automatically report a need for reclassification. czar 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That's definitely sensible to me. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Found a very brief discussion at Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 10#Draft-class which only involved one other editor, but explains my rationale for the change. If you think this needs revisiting, we should probably consider changing it for all projects rather than setting up custom importance masks for your own project. Shall we post at WT:COUNCIL? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This definitely merits wider discussion, but I would suggest that the change be made here depending on local consensus. WT:COUNCIL is a good spot to advertise, but I would advise a separate discussion be at the meta banner talk page. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I've reverted that change so your unassessed drafts will now go into NA-priority. If any other WikiProject wants to do the opposite we can discuss again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments category[edit]

At the moment we have |COMMENTS = yes |COMMENTS_CAT = Video game articles with comments which requires the existence of Category:Video game articles with comments which isn't going to happen per this CfD in November so either this needs switching off or pointing to a more suitable category that begins with WikiProject or similar. Le Deluge (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If |COMMENTS_CAT=Video game articles with comments is blanked or removed, the sole member of the category (Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes) will be transferred to Category:Video games articles with comments, which is a soft-redirect. Perhaps the content of Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments should be copied to Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes (plus a suitable heading), so that Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments can be deleted, which will allow the removal of both |COMMENTS= and|COMMENTS_CAT= - also the deletion of Category:Video games articles with comments under WP:CSD#G8. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
A single comment from 7 years ago is unlikely to be that useful now, so I have just redirected Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments to the talk page and removed the comments parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: this edit won't prevent other WikiProjects from treating the talk page as having comments though. Indeed, even after a WP:NULLEDIT, the talk page is still in Category:Computer animation articles with comments, Category:Machinima articles with comments, Category:Animation articles with comments, Category:Fictional character articles with comments; this categorisation is dependent merely on the existence of the /Comments page, not on what it contains. In addition, the message " This article has an assessment summary page." is displayed at the bottom of the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} box; this message can be suppressed by blanking the /Comments page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, it will detect a blank /Comments page and treat it as non-existent. But the means of detecting redirects was not available at that time, so it might be a good idea to add this functionality. Better still, would be to abolish these subpages altogether. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I would think that the only way to get those banners to stop saying "we have a comments page" is to make similar edits to those banners based on similar consensuses for those WikiProjects. Why would the discussion at TT:WPVG be a consensus for those changes? --Izno (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a small change to {{WPBS}} so that redirects are not treated as valid pages for these comments. I can make a similar to change shortly to {{WPBM}}. In the long term though, I think we should get rid of these pages. If anyone wants to help with this effort, please let me know! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2016[edit]

Change Category:Video game articles needing reassessment to Category:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_14#Category:Video_game_articles_needing_reassessment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89(T·C) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)