Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20200405/Feature

← Back to 20200405

Empty star icon at COM:RFD

The empty star icon has been nominated for deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_insource:flaticon «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 19:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. At this point it looks like it will be closing without deletion. Sadly WP:VG has only ever had one of these, but it seems like a useful symbol. Presumably the same sort of thing might have been awarded for A-Class articles after the deprecation if they had been treated the same as Good and Featured content. I wonder what the next group that might plausibly be marked historical. Maybe the "Topics" (FTs and GTs) whose growth has basically flatlined. If that was to happen I'd hope the empty star was available to designate our former achievements. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hungry for further analysis?

I feel like I didn't do enough to analyze the data above. I recognize that the text may be a bit dry, and for some this may be a "Thank you Alex, you've done quite enough" scenario so I will collapse the extended analysis (i.e. my own notes on how I interpret the curves above). It's nothing spectacular, but for those who want to read more, please read on.

Further analysis

• In general I would interpret the growth curves in the following manner:
  • Growth vs reduction - This is pretty basic, but if we see growth that means that work is being done. Articles are being passed through the quality processes and articles are being advanced to high quality articles. Reduction or "negative growth" (which only occurs as a trend for FTs during 3Q09-4Q10) indicates either that previous assessments are being re-evaluated, or that articles are being lost (deletion, merging, etc.)
  • Steady vs variable - Steady growth indicates that quarterly growth remains relatively consistent from quarter to quarter. If you look the rate of growth from 1Q15 to 2Q15, the same rate of growth would closely match the expected rate of growth between 1Q15 to 1Q20. Variable growth indicates that there is instability in the expected rate of growth such that a quarter-by-quarter comparison would produce surprising bi-quaterly, tri-quarterly, or yearly results, but that over longer periods a general trend would be observable
  • Exponential growth - Growth at an increasingly rapid pace over a constant period of time. The only portion of the above graphs that demonstrate exponential growth is in the FAs during 4Q01-1Q09. Growth like this seems to indicate an explosion of interest in a topic.
  • Third degree polynomial growth - Rapid growth that halts or reduces before returning to rapid growth. This kind of growth appears to be roughly demonstrated by the GAs during 3Q15-4Q19, and suggests an explosion of interest, interrupted for a period, and then returning to explosive growth. The interruption period may either reflect a period of lack of interest, instability (as from policy changes, community discussions about standards, etc.), or re-evaluation.
  • Linear growth (<1) - Slow but steady growth that maintains a constant rate. This may suggest some degree of disinterest in the category by the community.
  • Linear growth (>1) - Fast and steady growth that maintains a constant rate. This suggests that interest is steady but not explosive. The greater the rate above 1 per quarter, the greater the level of interest. This tends to be typical of well established categories that are not yet approaching the maximum of the category.
  • Logarithmic growth - May indicate either general disinterest or maximization of the category over time. Investment in the growth of these curves show that there was a period of great growth at first, but that the rate of growth has slowed and the curve has been flattened to remain at steadily slower increase.
  • Non-growth - A flat curve indicated disinterest or maximization of the category. Non-growth at a low level tends to suggest disinterest whereas maintenance of non-growth at a higher level suggests maximization or saturation of the category.
  • Negative growth - A reduction of the number of catalogued entries. The only period demonstrating negative growth is with the FTs during 3Q09-4Q10. This kind of curve most likely suggests a period of re-evaluation either by stricter monitoring or the development of stricter criteria.
  Regarding the most recent year or so: FAs show linear >1 growth which suggests that growth in this category is generally important to the Project and that the maximum is not yet in sight. GAs show third degree polynomial growth which suggests that there is great interest in increasing this category. The reason for this may be attributed to zealous GA creation by the community (or individual Project members) or re-evaluations leading to promotion. Standards may also play a large part especially if linked to re-evaluations. FLs are growing logarithmically so interest seems to be either waning or approaching the categorical maximum. FTs and GTs both demonstrate linear <1 growth suggesting possible disinterest in the category, and the logarithmic nature of the FPs suggest that the category has reached a maximum (which seems extremely unlikely) or that there is general disinterest in the topic (which is more likely but still seems implausible). An alternative explanation is also available in this category when the individual images are regarded as a gallery. The vast majority of FPs were created by a single editor, User:Evan-Amos (see 2015 Interview from WP:VG Newsletter (Volume 8, No. 2)) who seems to have self-imposed limits for his own contributions in this category to video game consoles. It is possible that Evan-Amos is losing interest in the subtopic, the category as a whole, or that he is beginning to reach a categorical maximum (either limited by the number available as a whole or by the number available to him) and this illustrates a very interesting phenomenon: that individual editors can have a significant impact on the curves we track simply by participating zealously. Although most of my analysis attributes growth changes to the community, a more thinly-sliced analysis may show that individuals are more significant contributor than the contributions of the community and although this claim has been called into question for articles, for images this in fact supports Jimmy Wales' 2010-era claim that 2% of editors have created 3/4 the all of Wikipedia's content. For non-collaborative works like images, Wales' claims may be true.

Additional further analysis to cover the past decade (i.e. the original idea that prompted this feature) could also be forthcoming if I find the time. Please read or ignore at your leisure per your preference. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)