Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

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.
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles


Q4 2016[edit]

@GamerPro64: & Torchiest - If you have the time, please read-over the interview. The material is controversial and I don't want there to be any appearance that the newsletter is endorsing anything. Please let me know if there is anything further that should be redacted or whether you think there is any potential for problems if we publish the interview as it is now. From discussions with ArbCom members during the GamerGate interviews my understanding is that these kinds of interviews are generally OK as long as we use a healthy dose of caution to avoid enabling banned activity (i.e. Niemti's feminism-related topic bans), to avoid calls to action for meat puppets, and to protect the interests of the person who has kindly agreed to be interviewed.
Otherwise I think the newsletter is good to go. I think we ended up missing our last delivery so we could do a double delivery this quarter (Q3 and Q4) or at a minimum we could just link to the Q3 newsletter in the "News and Announcements" section. I'm leaning toward a double delivery, though, just out of fairness to last quarter's interviewees (ferret and Izno) whose info on Wikidata is really good stuff. Torchiest, if you could work your delivery magic that would be great, but I can see it's been a few days since you edited last so if you're not available for this delivery then we can come up with an alternative plan. -Thibbs (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I must say, Niemti is a very controversial editor. I, among others, have had bad experiences with him. But besides that, I can't help but think the interview is too bulky. I don't know. I wanna hear Torchiest's opinion. GamerPro64 06:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also had mixed/negative experiences with him in the past, but like it or not his is a voice that makes up a part of the discourse on Wikipedia. First because he's actually ranked #16 on the leaderboard of all of our article creators and second because he has proven to be hard to keep out. It's certainly out of phase with our other interviews, though. I mentioned this in the interview's "lede" and I tried to make it clear that this wasn't an endorsement of Niemti's Wikipedia career or personal views, though on reflection I think it might be a good idea to rename the section from "Featured editor: Niemti" to "Interview: Niemti" or something like that to further avoid the appearance that we were celebrating him. Anyway the other reason which is more self-serving for us is that my hope is to get more readers paying attention to the newsletter because I feel like we need a jolt of help. For me personally, I have much less free time now than ever before and I feel like it's negatively impacting the newsletter. I certainly don't want to turn any of the readers off (which is possibly a concern here), but I would like to catch their attention with something new. And I hope that might inspire new recruits to the news room. Anyway I trust both of your judgments so I'm OK whatever way we end up going with this interview. What say you, Torchiest? -Thibbs (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
GamerPro64 and Torchiest, feel free to ping other parties to this discussion too if you think it would help us come to a decision. I only ask that for participants in the discussion, the interests of the newsletter should take precedence. -Thibbs (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Whew. That is a pretty huge interview. I know he has a bad reputation, and I can recall bemusement at some of the things he wrote at e.g. WT:VG, but I've only interacted with him on the fringes, since I don't think we directly edited many of the same topics. I think changing it from Featured Editor to Interview is a good idea to help tamp down any appearance of endorsement. And I feel like there's a bit too many tangential rants included. It does feel like we're giving him a podium to just say his piece from start to finish. Some judicious trimming could help, like the first part of question #1. But it's tough because I do agree with some aspects of his assessment, especially as it relates to a lot of the gender controversies, and there are a few bits and pieces of insight scattered throughout. A lot of the answers are depressing and seem to indicate he's really in a bad place personally, which I can't figure out if that's useful or helpful for us. I would be willing to take a stern look at it this weekend and try to cut it down, or create a parallel trimmed version for review. I see a lot of redactions already to protect the identities of people he's had conflict with; were those done in consultation with him or after the fact? Does he know or care if we edit his responses down to more a reasonable size? —Torchiest talkedits 20:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Torchiest, the redactions were done after the fact, but I have told him that I made them. I believe he would be OK with trimming as long as the meaning was kept intact, but I'll contact him to make sure about that. In the meanwhile I would appreciate a temporary trimming of the longest sections if you have the time. I agree that the response is long (about 40-45% longer than the next longest interview) and that it kind of gets into personal issues at times, but at the end of the day my goal here was to get insight into what motivates a sockpuppet user and to see if it was possible to examine the points of divergence between the indef. blocked user and the community that ostensibly endorsed the blocking. So I'd like to retain as much of the flavor of the interviewee's responses as possible even if I disagree with some parts of it. Thanks for taking a look at it, Torchiest. -Thibbs (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I got in touch with him again and he said that he would be OK with a trimming as long as we try our best to keep the meaning intact. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I caught a stomach virus last weekend which laid me low for a good number of days. I'm going to give this another shot this weekend, and I'll whip the whole thing in shape, and do the double delivery as you mentioned earlier, which I hadn't seen until just today. —Torchiest talkedits 10:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thibbs: I've tried to trim as much as possible without losing essential meaning and intent. Think that's enough? It's still large but some of the more tangential parts are out. —Torchiest talkedits 21:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the trim, Torchiest. It definitely helps rein in some of the more off-topic material. Considering that interviews are given on their own separate pages in the final version of each issue anyway, there's little risk that the length of an interview would detract from the rest of the newsletter. Readers can simply skim or skip it if it's too tiresome. Some readers may find Niemti distasteful (just like they may have disliked TDA, Ryulong, Lucia Black, or any of the other controversial people we have covered) but I think that he (like the others) sheds light on the WP:VG-oriented Wikipedian condition. Anyway I'm pretty keen to see this issue published as soon as possible because the feature is time sensitive and if we push it out much longer the data will no longer be accurate. As far as I'm concerned it's good to go. -Thibbs (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I just got the Q3 newsletter published to my page, instead of the Q4 which I think y'all meant to send? Though, I'm not sure, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20170102 still has 2 redlinks. --PresN 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

PresN Ah, I forgot to send the last quarter's newsletter, so we decided to send it very late. The new one is still being prepared. Sorry for the confusion. —Torchiest talkedits 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Q1 2017[edit]

Okay, I finally got caught up. What's on the agenda for this quarter? —Torchiest talkedits 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thibbs and GamerPro64, are the interview and stats ready to go? I can put this together tonight. —Torchiest talkedits 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I see the summary here is still left unfinished, but otherwise I think it's good to go. Thanks, Torchiest! -Thibbs (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Done the summary. GamerPro64 01:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Torchiest: Before the issue goes live, can you do one last sweep in my interview for typos? I think I've caught them all but there may be a few stragglers that I missed.--Coin945 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Q2 2017[edit]

@Torchiest:, GamerPro64 - Unless there were plans for a digest this quarter, I think we may be good to go now. I've been working on a FA-related leaderboard feature over the weekend as a way to promote featured content, but it's taking longer than expected and ProtoDrake has now written an excellent postmortem on the FFVII FA-promotion so we've already got one feature for the newsletter. It probably makes the most sense to hold the leaderboard for next quarter's issue. What do you think? ProtoDrake, do you know if anyone else is planning to add anything else to the feature? If not, I think we're ready to publish. Can you do that for us, Torchiest? -Thibbs (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thibbs: I haven't heard anything about anyone else wanting to add. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have anything to contribute to the postmordom and I think the issue is ready to go. GamerPro64 18:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I was able to finish the Featured Leaderboard I was working on. Actually I finished it several days ago, but I was hoping to make it cover GAs as well and I just don't have the time right now. The topic of this leaderboard fits right in with ProtoDrake's postmortem feature too, so I think it would make sense to run them both this quarter. I have an idea for something for next quarter so it doesn't make sense to hold off the leaderboard for next quarter and drag it out too long.
Anyway tomorrow we'll be a fashionable week late from the publication date, but I hate to hound Torchiest. GamerPro64, I know you're really active with The Signpost these days. How do they handle mass publishing? Do they use an automated process? I know they're having some hard times just recently, but do you think we could get hooked up with their publishing mechanism somehow? With 300 WP:VG Newsletter readers it's not completely out of the question to just do it manually either so I could try that if all else fails. -Thibbs (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe they do use automation. That's not my sector but that makes more sense. GamerPro64 01:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like it's done through User:MediaWiki message delivery. Looking into this a bit deeper I see that mass messaging is something that can be requested via WT:MMS. I've just requested that this quarter be delivered. Having gone through the steps this time (with only 3 mis-created pages that had to be quietly speedied... :) ) I think I can handle delivery now as a backup in case Torchiest is unavailable. I think I've updated all the necessary pages now. Hopefully I haven't forgotten anything. -Thibbs (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Ach sorry I was MIA. Only thing is that I normally transclude the newsletter so corrections can be made if needed. Thanks for taking care of it. —Torchiest talkedits 04:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Q3 2017[edit]

I mentioned that I had an idea for this quarter and it's something I do plan to get to eventually, but this isn't going to be a good quarter for me. Apologies in advance, but I really don't think I'll be able to manage anything this quarter. I'll do my best to get the DYKs, NAAs, etc. finished in time. -Thibbs (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this will be a complete bare bones issue like we had back in Q4 2013... but if so then it's ready to send out. @Torchiest: do you want to put it together and ship it? If you're busy I can try to do it too. And if anyone has anything to add to the announcements, then please add whatever you'd like. -Thibbs (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm free all day Sunday and should be able to do it. Thanks for the reminder. —Torchiest talkedits 05:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Q4 2017[edit]

Starting section for last quarter of the year. I think I'll try to do the digest again this time, and make it an annual looking back at the entire year. —Torchiest talkedits 23:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)