This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mika1h. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
80% causes the pics to offcenter and distract from the main text. How about 40%? N/m less than 80% doesn't make a difference on my browser. Adjusted the logos size and centering. Alatari (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article ATV Quad Power Racing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have renamed the "External links" section to "References" (because, frankly, it's what they were but apparently, one has to follow the guidelines nowadays). Would you consider reassessing the page? :) --Koveras☭17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the [rollback] (which should appear unbloded if you have twinkle installed) link on the lastest diff page which should appear beside the link to the user's contributions. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro会話23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Do the changes that have been made satisfy you, or do you think there need to be other changes? I was checking to see what we would need to do to win your support :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing Wikiproject Sega article assessments and templates. Everything is in its place for a reason, and if you've really got something to argue about with this, then please discuss it on either the WP:SEGA talk page or the WP:SEGA/A talk page. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You live So far away from me! I live in the -5 time zone in the Eastern US Amazing how the internet works!
Anyway... Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) which is why I am sending these messages to random people.
These listed Wikipages Need your help!
Whoever knows when Alf Schofield died please put in on the Alf Schofield page, that would really help.
Look at the Talk:Kangaroo (meat) page regarding my post- Kangaroo Species- that would really help.
Look at Talk:Katharine McPhee regarding her spouse under Relationships by Keane Rox.
For April 2007 Nor'easter well, I put in a fact and referenced it and now I don't know how to complete the reference. Click the blue 2 reference and you'll know what I mean. Then click the [2] at the top of the April 2007 Nor'easter article and complete the reference.
Mika1h, I guess I owe you an apology for the adjustments you made to the Wikiproject Sega tags for Sega Mega Drive. The article will remain A-Class for now, since the tags have since been removed and more work has been done on the article by multiple editors (it's up for GA-nomination now, too.) While we at Wikiproject Sega may disapprove of the way you went about it, you pointed out something that apparently the editors of the Assessment Department had missed. The problem has since been fixed, likely because you pointed it out, and for that, I wish to award you with this, and an invitation to join Wikiproject Sega if you are interested.
Feel free to put this on your userpage, you've earned it.
Okay, thanks. I will next time discuss first with Sega Project if I feel the need to change a rating. --Mika1h (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I unfortunately disagree that Metal Gear 2 is of low importance. It was a groundbreaking 8-bit title with superior storytelling, game design, and music for its time. I feel it was given a very unfair rating due to not being released in the United States because it was on the MSX, and that the article's chances for expansion from others have been hurt by this decision. Please reconsider. Thank you. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The first game was the ground breaking one. Metal Gear 2 just expanded the ideas from the first game. Although generally considered a good game, I don't think it has enough merits to be rated higher. --Mika1h (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of the programming elements in this game were completely impossible on any other 8-bit console. The 9-screen radar and ruthlessness of the enemy AI was a huge technical achievement.
I also cannot think of any 8-bit console title from 1990 that had such an expansive, dark storyline for an action game.
I don't agree with the statement that it "just expanded" from the 1st title. I believe that is a large understatement of this game's remarkable quality. Thank you. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll put it to good use. If you come across any other useful development references, please let me know! -- Sabre (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead is one of the most important parts of any Wikipedia article; its job to summarize the article in 2 to 3 paragraphs in order to familiarize the reader with the structure of the content that you will providing them as well as to give a quick one-minute overview of the topic. Many articles that are processed through Good Article or Featured Article assessments will be heavily scrutinized for a poor lead section.
For articles dealing with video games, a common practice has developed for leads, being a 3-paragraph discussion.
First paragraph
The first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels.
Second paragraph
The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game.
Third paragraph
The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged.
This approach should help you to write a good lead for nearly any game, though this may need to be altered for other games. If there's not a lot of reception information for a game, it may be worthwhile to combine the listed first and third paragraphs into one paragraph. There may be need to talk more about an aspect not normally covered in video game articles (such as with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) which should be noted in the lead.
The problem with including his cancelled novels is... well. They've never been released. What about The Warlord of Kansas? DS (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your minor but still useful assistance with this article, I've worked hard on it and am always glad to find other editors to pitch in. The Clawed One (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Gungrave
Thanks for fixing that. At one point this was the article for the whole franchise, but the anime was split off into it's own article. Hewinsj (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is.
This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article.
Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because of screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Wikipedia.
Things to remember
Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game.
Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS."
Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it.
Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served.
Why do you feel that it is necessary to remove certain games from a list of categories that they belong in? Redundant or not, they belong on those lists because the companies made those games. --Neofcon (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would help assess the unassessed animanga articles? Your help would be appreciated. (Duane543 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC))
Okay, sounds fine. I plan to start rating from Z and going backwards doing dozen articles a day. --Mika1h (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: rating Silent Hunter
Yes, I understand what you've meant. But I was just wondering on what basis is this rating assigned? Is there some rule on Wikiproject Video Games ? IMHO this game is rather a classic so there should be High importance rating. But that's just my opinion :). Thanks, Lothar25 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no rules for importance ratings that I am aware of. You basically rate them as what feels right. As for Silent Hunter I'm okay for it to be High-importance. I'm not too familiar with the game, I just know it's a landmark submarine simulation but as subsims aren't the most notable games out there I rated it as "Mid". Also, there are some general notes about importance at here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#"Importance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Development content is very important to include in an encyclopedic video game article. It provides a history of how the game came to be and provides real world information needed for an article to claim comprehensiveness. However, writing this section can be difficult because the amount and type of information available will vary for each game. One of the best sources for such information is a developer interview. These can provide insight into the thought process of the designers and give examples of influences and obstacles encountered. Previews can also be helpful by giving a snap shot of the game before it was released and may mention development issues that were still being addressed.
When writing about development, common sense should be used to organize content to maintain a sense of flow for the reader. Most times, it is best to give the information in a somewhat chronological order—though information can also be grouped by topics like audio, promotion, graphics, etc. If one such topic gets large enough, it can be split off into its own subsection or regular section. For example, Kingdom Hearts#Audio is a separate section from the rest of the development information because it focuses on the game's musical score and voice acting. Portal (video game)#Soundtrack, however, does not have as much content and is a subsection of the main development section.
What to include about development
Who are the developers? Which company or studio developed the game, and are there any prominent designers involved?
When did development begin?
When and where was the game first announced? (e.g. Tokyo Game Show, E3 Media and Business Summit, etc.)
What influenced the game's story, characters, music, and/or gameplay ? (e.g. past games, movies, books, etc.)
Were there any delays?
Was anything excluded because of time or technological constraints? (e.g. extra levels, game modes, characters, story arcs, etc.)
Things to remember
Avoid proseline. Though maintaining a sense to chronology is important, this section should not read like an ordered list of events.
Images in this section should be relevant to the information given and should add on to it.
Source everything to avoid information being tagged as original research.
The reason why I removed the cat that says event started in 2008 is not true. The only reason the article starts with a list from 08 is because I still going back to do research on the past years. It think it started in 06 or 07. Sorry for the confusion.GearsOf War14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In many video game articles, the Reception section is the last main section of prose. As its name suggests, within the section you should summarize the critical reaction to the game. The section should provide a high-level overview of what the critics liked and didn’t like about the game; it is a summary, not a repetition of what publications thought. Therefore, don’t put in excessive, long winded quotes or have a paragraph detailing IGN’s thoughts on the game. To prevent cluttering of the prose with scores, reviews table such as {{VG Reviews}} can be used to organize this kind of information.
A good way to lead off the section is a by-the-numbers or at a glance snapshot of the game’s reception; you can use aggregate scores to suggest an overall critical response to the game, and can provide sales figures (if you have them) for the game’s release. Commonly, the rest of the reception is broken into positive and negative paragraphs. Entirely separate ‘Praise’ and ‘Controversy’ or ‘Negative comments’ or the like are strongly discouraged as troll magnets. If the game has won any awards, then listing them at the bottom of the reception section is an option.
Other things to remember:
Don’t list every single review in the reviews table; likewise, don’t mention every award the game has ever gotten.
Generally, talk about what the reviewers say rather than speaking for them; for example, “Reviewer X of Publication Y took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z” instead of “Review X said that “I took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z.” If a reviewer has a good comment which sums up the positive/negative/overall reaction, or a particular sentiment common in many reviews, it might be more appropriate to use.
If adding sales data, make sure to provide context; did it sell those 4.2 million units within three months of release or three years? If possible, break down the sales by region; did the Japanese like the game, but Americans not buy it?
Use reviews whose scores are outliers from the average ratings to find key points that were liked or disliked about a game. If all reviews except for one average around a 9 out of 10, and the one is a 7 out of 10, there is probably some clear negative points to be found in it; the same works with very positive reviews.
Perhaps most importantly, give proper weight and keep a neutral point of view. If the game received mostly negative scores, having three paragraphs on positive aspects and glossing over the bad parts in a sentence or two conveys the wrong impression to readers.
Hi, Mika1h -- I noticed you changed the importance of the history of manga article. I'm curious why -- no one has paid much attention to that article ever since Nihonjoe added a whole bunch of new material from the main article on manga some time ago. I'm not disputing your change, just wondering what your reasoning was, particularly because I wrote a lot of the new material. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Importance ratings aren't based on article quality. And that article is simply one of the core topics of the project. --Mika1h (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right—importance level does not refer to quality. But that doesn't explain why you made it top importance. Who decided that it's a core topic? What's the reasoning here? Timothy Perper (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it self-evident why "history of manga" would be top-importance of a anime and manga project. Same as every other "history of" article is top-importance of its respective project.
Hmm... I think you're being a bit too touchy about my question. I wasn't challenging your decision; I'm asking what the rationale for the decision is. It should be self-evident that I -- since I wrote much of the article on the history of manga -- think that history is very significant. However, I know other editors who do not agree. Some are much more interested in the international marketing of manga (and anime) and others are much more interested in the styles and genres of manga. So it's nice to hear from someone -- yourself -- who agrees with me that history is important. But I also know that we need to be clear why we think so. So I asked you. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is important because with understanding history we can see how manga evolved throughout the years and came to be like it's today. --Mika1h (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles.
Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page.
Feature: Reliable Sources
A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Wikipedia's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source.
To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list!
Hi. I noted you had combined WPBiography banners. I wanted to let you know that I separated them. The music and the actors/filmmakers projects are separate projects under the WPBiography parent project and Jackson has different levels of priority assessment in the two projects. He's a top priority in the music project, but not in the film actors. The actors and filmmakers group has a core group of 100 biographies that were determined by consensus to be of top priority and Jackson isn't in it. I just didn't want there to be a question. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Wikipedia 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
I am sorry I misunderstood your edit. I did *NOT* see that you had reordered the existing flags, deleting none, and I apologize. I *think* I have it right now. Thank you for your edit, and please pardon my error. sinneed (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I just did it because that's how it is on all of our other pages, but it's not that important. From the way you put it, have I done that before and it was reverted? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"How can cancelled games be anything other than low importance?"
Well, when one was a highly anticipated title, related to a classic title in the genre and its cancellation is generally considered one of the last nails in the coffin of the genre, I'd say it counts as a mid-importance title. I'd agree with you that most cancelled games can't be anything above low, but this isn't generally considered a run-off-the mill game that the developer couldn't be bothered to finish (cough StarCraft: Ghost). -- Sabre (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mika1h. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
