Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk



Please don't forget to add {{subst:CVG deletion}} to the AfD pages after you've listed them here. Thanks. --SevereTireDamage 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Another reminder: If the AfD list page nearly destroys your computer as it does mine, a useful link is this experimental interface and bot: User:Dragons flight/AFD summary. It covers all existing open AfDs and even makes rough vote counts in different categories such as Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. --SevereTireDamage 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Since we currently have an amorphous mass of CVG deletion entries, which makes them hellishly difficult to read and keep up to date with, I'd like to propose we separate them by date using ==== headers. This would be done thus:

  1. At the top would be placed a single section labeled "Older." If the oldest date has, at any point, fewer than four entries (ie, less than or equal to three), it would be dissolved and have its entries placed in this section.
  2. Below, a section for each day, labelled according to its date and in chronological order. Unless a given day is the oldest currently with its own section, it is exempt from the dissolution process outlined in the point above.
  3. New sections are added by the users as they add entries for each new day.

This might take a bit of organisation, but I'd certainly be happy to maintain the system personally (since it was my idea, and I can imagine that it'd take a fair amount of work over time). What thinks you all? RandyWang (raves/review me!) 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Going by date would be good; plus then you could see what the newest ones are and which ones have already racked up some "delete as fancruft per nom" votes. -- gakon5 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the layout as well. The section editing by date will also make it a little easier to add entries. The only problem is that the TOC for the front page for WP:CVG is already monstrous, and this will make it even longer (and the Requested Articles was recently condensed for this reason). Still, not a very important reason overall. --SevereTireDamage 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I support, though you've already done it. Makes it easier to keep track of, add on and remove. I don't think it adds too much length, and I'm still working on making the rest of the page shorter. --PresN 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you were the one that removed the dates for each afdl tag (and, in my laziness, I'll assume that you are), thanks! I was surprised to find so much text "missing," but I'm warming to the differences already. That, and it'll make maintaining the Archive somewhat easier. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've organised the closed deletion in "kept", "deleted", etc. Hope you guys don't mind. --Sloane 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Date links[edit]

I've linked each displayed date to the relevant log, to make life easier in checking the logs for the previous few days: basically, it's an enormous hassle to have to find one's way to them, when they could just be linked right there at the page. My concern is that this may make things hard to read, with the reduced contrast, so feel free to revert if this doesn't work as well as intended. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it; I don't think it makes it harder to read at all. --PresN 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Saving some of the stuff[edit]

Tag any article on specific units/characters/areas with {{Move to gaming wiki}} then I will move it to a gaming wiki. Just don't tag mods or fan sites. --Cs california 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed list[edit]

I've been archiving AfDs in the closed list that are older than one month (which should be time for reference purposes.) However, it still gets quite long.

Could we print the closed list in small text? MarašmusïneTalk 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. WP:BOLD. Andre (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Transclude deletion debates?[edit]

It might be useful to transclude the "open" deletion debates, like the main AFD pages do. This way, it is easy to see which discussions need attention or closing. User:Krator (t c) 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


The instructions on this page are confusing. I don't know what to do. SharkD (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote some. Are they clear now? Or try to edit the page and see how that looks, it's quite straightforward when you see the page source. User:Krator (t c) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template deletions[edit]

How do I add TFDs here? --Mika1h (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question. I have been forced to manually place a recent template I thought was unnecessary and nominated for TfD on the deletion page. I suppose they do not get very many nominations for TfD at all. MuZemike (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been templates, but unfortunately, since TfDs are not transluded, they don't work the same way. See this proposal to change the way CfDs are handled, which we hope to later apply to TfDs. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone object to me converting the archives to a month-by-month basis (i.e. deletions in March, deletions in April, etc.), such as is for the new articles? I'll also redo /Archive 1, as right now it is unruly. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's done. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Adrenaline Vault[edit]

This article failed its second AfD a year ago, in part I believe because the site had fallen on hard times by then. I was thinking about asking to have this article userfied. But then I thought that since I was never an Avault reader, nor even a big video game fan, I might not be as knowledgeable or motivated as someone from your WikiProject. Or it might turn out that even you guys think it isn't notable, in which case I could save myself the time. Is there anyone here inclined to adopt the article? --Groggy Dice T | C 01:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Why are there no instruction on how to add category for deletion?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since they do not have their own subpages to be transluded, they are not included in this list. There is a proposal to change this, but it has died down a little. I'm all for changing the way CfDs are handled, but it has been hard to get enough people involved. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Search box[edit]

It's wreaking havoc on the layout on certain browsers; on mine it makes the table of contents only about 20px in length. Anytime I try to fix the formatting/location of the search box, it messes up the formatting of the transcluded AFD discussions. There has to be a better way to format this, but I'm not sure how. MuZemike 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been playing around with it to get it to look the best, but I also have had some problems. Does it look any better now? I made the search box smaller again. What web browser are you using? I always check the page in both Firefox and IE if I change it, and both seemed fine. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Firefox, but also on a Linux box, so that might also have something to do with it. MuZemike 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Images for deletion?[edit]

Transcluding images for deletion discussions does not work because the entries are not on separate sub-pages. What to do? I'm writing with Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_6#Worms_World_Party_screenshot.png specifically in mind. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just stick a note with a link to the discussion on the page. Nifboy (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A few early closures[edit]

I've only just read the discussion to change AfD length from 5 to 7 days. This means the AfD's I closed today and yesterday were done so too early. I don't think any of them were controversial (all but one, BVE TrainSim, may as well have been Snowballs). If anyone wishes to contest these closures let me know directly and I'll restore them. Marasmusine (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this under WP:DELSORT[edit]

I'm a regular deletion sorter these days. I do my sorting by a semi-automated extension for Twinkle. Each sort is 2-3 clicks, beyond anything needed to decide where to sort.

But the tool only supports projects that are under the deletion sorting project. This page is one of the major ones that is not under the project. No tool support means I simply do not sort to this page. So I was wondering whether it would be possible to bring this page under that project. The likely major stumbling block is that the page would need to come under the standards of that project. A quick glance at formatting, you would lose the daily sections. But at a minimum you would gain:

  1. Support under the automated sorting tool, which means that us sorters who use that tool could actually sort things to here.
  2. WP:DELSORT has a bot that regularly archives closed discussions. This appears to currently be a manual process on this page.

There are likely other pros/cons, but those are the ones that are obvious to me. This is, at this point, just a feeler to see if the idea has generally support and/or opposition, before trying to take any sort of official action on the idea. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been mentioned before on WT:VG, I believe (general support, if I recall correctly, but then again...). It might be wise to raise the question there. --Izno (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. I personally do not really care where the debate occurrs, so if people want to take the debate over there rather than here, that is fine with me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The response over at WP:VG has been underwhelming. But I've done these before where I seemed to be the main person who was interested in seeing something happen. And in such cases, if I want it to actually happen, it then falls to me to actually do it. So here's my current path forward....

I'm going to start using this section to work out a plan of attack for actually implementing the desired move. The plan is open to adaption to any who want to participate in it, though I intend to keep it moving forward. So far I have not seen any particular dissent to the general idea, but that can always change. This is not on any deadline, so if anyone does want to dissent, the plan can be put on hold to deal with their issues, right up until it is actually implemented.

So, what are the needed steps to move this thing under WP:DELSORT, as I see it?

  1. Develop a mockup of what the new sorting page will look like. Get general approval of the new page, or at least a lack of active dissent.
  2. Build a mockup of the new archive page.
  3. Make sure that WP:VG and WP:DELSORT are kept aware of the ongoing planning, so that, when implemented, it is not a surprise to anyone.
  4. At the time of actual implementation:
  5. Move the new archive page into place.
  6. Migrate any discussions open at that point onto the page mockup.
  7. Move the mockup into place, leaving a redirect behind at the old page (this one).
  8. Set up for wubbot to archive the new page
  9. Set up for the DELSORT tool to sort to the new page.
  10.  ??? (That's all I can think of at this point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like the way things are now and I don't see any benefit of changing it. No reason to fix what's not broken. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's broken in that it's increasingly outside an ongoing process, one that will over time become more automated. The longer this remains separate the more it is going to have to be maintained by hand, in a format that differs from all the other deletion discussion pages, which means people won't bother. People already aren't bothering and have been (mis)using the general games deletion sorting page, which is more for card games and the like. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Everyone likes MrKIA's method more. The only practical benefit of the proposed move would be to have a bot do things. That doesn't come in here since MrKIA does a fine job already, so let's not waste more time here than necessary and move on. User:Krator (t c) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC) ~~~~

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games — Standardized location for such pages now. Will need some formatting (see the /Games, /Sports, /Events, /France, etc., versions; see also thread immediately above). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also informed that WP:DS/C will need to be updated. I'm not sure this is even listed in there yet at all! PS: There is no reason that this page as to be formatted and such as per the above before the move. The fact of its moving will probably inspire deletion sorters to help format the page properly instead of increasingly ignoring it in favor of overloading the games delsort page with vg delsorting. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. In the current format this page does not work with delsort scripts and bots, so it should not just be moved there. My understating is that the consensus on the VG WikiProject is to keep their manually managed queue separate. Pcap ping 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the above section still reflects the opinions of the project. We find that more is lost than gained by moving the page, and unless those features are implemented on the new page, we're fine the way we are. I'll also post a notice on the main project talk page, as I don't think many watch this page. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The two previous discussions regarding this proposal can be found here and here. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What are the benefits of our current setup? I'm at a loss as to what is exactly at stake here. User:Krator (t c) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Archiving, AfDs sorted by day, and {{VG deletion}} automatically signing our tags. Note that WP:ANIME's delsort page uses manual archiving, which I'm in favor of so long as MrKIA11 continues to do a better job than the bots do (contrast our archives with those of, say, the Music project). Nifboy (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, if we wanted to do the minimal amount of change to the page and still allow scripts to post here, all we'd need to do is add a "Video Games" section for scripts to post to, call it unsorted, move them to by-day sections as they come in, and change {{VG deletion}} to use {{delsort}} instead. Nifboy (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate uniformity, but I think the current method we have works well enough. So long as MrKIA11 is willing to do the work, the VG project welcomes his method. He has the page well under control, and I defer to his judgment on its future. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commentary on the dates[edit]

Those date sections are, frankly, kind of distracting and not all that useful. Do we really need to include those? Curmudgeonly yours, RJH (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting WP:DELSORT merge[edit]

czar · · 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Marking this page as historical[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Marking_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games.2FDeletion_as_historical for a discussion about marking this page as historical czar  17:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusing display[edit]

In the 18th September section, the discussion about Portal:Xbox 360/about appears in the ToC as a sub-discussion of the Heaven's Dawn discussion above it, e.g.
1.4 Heaven's Dawn
1.4.1 Portal:Xbox 360/about
Is there some weird template code shenanigans going on? - X201 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because it's a MfD, and MfDs have lower header level? I'm not sure, just throwing out a theory. ansh666 19:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect talk page[edit]

This page gets very little traffic. Any discussion here would not see a wide audience, but should. Is there any opposition to archiving and then redirecting this talk page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games where more people can participate in discussions relevant to this page? – czar 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)