This is an archive of past discussions about User:Someone another. 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.
To be honest LTTP, I went at the article as hard as I could but was halted by the lack of development details out there and the fact that I can't expand the plot section without access to the game's manual or game itself for quoting characters, integrating the GBA version would run me against the same wall. It was intended as a case study to demonstrate that individual games don't need cramming into grouped articles and can benefit from having enough space to cover them properly, which it has achieved. According to Henrik's traffic tool, It receives about 8 hits a day on average, compared to about 40 for the obscure indie RPG Geneforge. My time would be better spent building up Geneforge 2 in the same way - it proves the point that indie games can receive significant coverage and be converted into quality articles. Someoneanother10:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: Assessment
...Assessment? What assessment? I have a bad habit of forgetting stuff I do...so, erm, could you remind me? :P Sorry for the inconvenience. --haha169 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that! I forgot about it already...I've removed it. Relist after the FAC fails will be good, but hopefully, there won't be a need to relist. --haha169 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have time, feel free to leave a review. I don't want to have SandyGeorgia end up giving all the bad stuff - that's not a good sign. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Allgame
First off, thanks for the assessment of Zanac; I felt it needed a bit more, too. I am currently tied up with another article (Ninja Gaiden (NES)) right now, but I may get back to Zanac when I have time.
It's a commercial database aiming to provide details on all games, it shouldn't be problematic in terms of reliability. The sources list certainly does need updating, I'll look at it at some point. Whenever you'd like further input on Zanac or any other game, please give the assessment page a whirl. Someoneanother18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I've changed the rating to C-class, as it is now apparently being used, and I've made some corrections that you suggested. I'll put another request up later on. MuZemike (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
WP: VG A-class
I want to activate a formal process for WP: VG's assessment department for rating A-classes. Similar to GAN, but it requires two volunteers to assess the article. They could be used like GAN, placed underneath requests on the assessment page:
On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail.
Second opinion: This reviewer has passed this article, but requires second editor's assessment to promote this article to A-class.
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
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.
I mean a template which will document all the characters and other relevant entries. However I see there is not separate article on the characters of RuneScape. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The sub-articles were deleted at AFD some time ago. The sources available don't go into any detail regarding the game - we can cite that it's a very important game in terms of players (it's even in the Guinness World Records gamer edition 2008), but nobody is covering the in-game aspects properly. Unfortunately nobody is stepping forward to fill the gap in coverage of MMOGs, the only sites which cover them consistently are unreliable or little more than GameFAQ reader reviews hosted on other sites. Someoneanother13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for SOCOM II
I wanted to thank you for helping with the SOCOM II article. I was prevented from editing on the article again, and that guy kept on adding OR. Thank you!
Did you know that you can transclude your GAN comments to the talk page - and make it more visible so people can see it? I did that for you in your review in Secret of Evermore, in this edit. --haha169 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm primarily responsible for getting Secret of Evermore up to GA standards at the moment, so I've been performing the necessary alterations you've suggested on its talk page. I'd like to make a few comments.
First, I don't have any sales information on the game; the only thing I've found to this extent was an interview with Ted Woolsey, in which he stated the game was a financial flop. I didn't want to you use that, so I've simply removed that aspect from the lead.
Second, you mentioned that it needs more references in the Gameplay and Plot sections. Would you recommend using the reviews I have access to, or something else to fill the gaps?
Third, I live in the United States, but I believe the game was released in certain PAL regions in a large box with a strategy guide. See the reference I've listed at MobyGames, which has an image of the German version featuring a 76-page guide. I've also seen images of the French version with a 72-page guide on forums and eBay. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be reliable sources, so I was forced to use the reference I currently have. If needed, I'll remove the statement altogether.
Last, I was unable to obtain all the paper references I used in the Reception section. Believe me, I looked. So, I instead used summaries (again, Mobygames, see link). This is why I don't have authors or page numbers for those citations. As for rearranging it the way you suggested, I'll do my best.
Thanks for getting in touch and for what you've done so far. As far as the financial flop is concerned, if you quote and reference Woolsey's interview and attribute the comment to him then that's great - it's from the horse's mouth. For the references, if the sources already in the article cover the uncited info then by all means just cross-reference, no point in trying to find additional sources if it's already covered. The mobygames citation is just a reproduction of the box art which clearly states that there's a 70-something page guide included, if you've seen other PAL regions with these guides on ebay then consider it dealt with. If not having the magazine is preventing you from expanding on the points in the reception section then don't worry about it.
One other thing, the GameSpot piece (used to cite the translation and Europe releases) is user-submitted and isn't going to pass as reliable, I'd recommend removing the first small paragraph of reception altogether, except the big-box + strategy guide info from Mobygames. This could be moved to the end of development (before the music section). Someoneanother18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've finally completed the checklist on the game's talk page, with only a few hours to spare. Please review the article again and let me know what you think. ~ Hibana05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the article once again. You'll need to elaborate on what specific "gaps" you want filled. I've added quotes from the game wherever I thought it was necessary. I transcribed the script months ago, but unfortunately, the game isn't very involved when it comes to the plot. ~ Hibana06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected everything but collapsing the table, as I feel that's what most people are coming to the article to look at, but if this is a problem, we can figure something else out. --MASEM23:46, 29 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!
Thanks for reviewing both of my articles! Especially FF7, that one was going to sit in the list forever. I've addressed all of your concerns, so both of the articles are ready for another look! --PresN (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me get the article to Good Article status, my first attempt with any article to do so - the points you raised will help me keep these things in mind in future. :) Synergy/Blades (Talk)17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That is good news, my pleasure. :) 17:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
GeoWars 2
Citing gameplay is ridiculous. What, you need citations for, say, Pac-Man or Galaga gameplay? You honestly need a citation to declare it's a multidirectional shooter?! JAF1970 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Citing gameplay is standard, the same as the other sections. If the information seems glaringly obvious then chances are it'll be covered in the first review you click, drop a few footnotes in place and it's done. Someoneanother18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Gave it a go fixing both things you mentioned. If there's anything in the lead or anything else that should be tidied I'll be glad to fix it. As always thanks for your time :)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:01, 1 September 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.
My thanks for this AfD. In a short time you showed courtesy to the article's author, respect for the effort put into it, concern for truth by doing the research that we're supposed to do when you would've gotten away with omitting it, impartiality in placing the article's merits over any possible ideologies about what Wikipedia should include, and readiness to cooperate. All in all, an example of how we must treat each other now that creating the largest reference work in human history has turned out to be the easy part. Kudos. --Kizor22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's very good of you to say, I didn't like nominating it but felt it best if I did it so nobody would label it insignificant or whatever, since most of my edits are on articles like that. I'll do my best to treat everyone the same way. Someoneanother23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, I was wondering if you'd forgotten about the abive GAN that you've got under review? TBH I was going to quick-fail it but missed the chance, it's still a start-class article, a C at the very most. Someoneanother18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The timing is almost scary. TBH I'm really tired could do with some rest, so please do and I'll have a look-see tomorrow, plenty of other articles out there for me to review, thanks for your consideration. Someoneanother01:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Awww, I owe ya one! Those things look too tasty... I should tell the nominator "This article is in such high demand that TWO reviewers tried reviewing it at the same time!!" :) Have a nice sleep! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
Okay, I think I should inform you of this just in case. I recently have been incredibly busy. So fixes for Sacrifice might not be really quick but I assure you they will be finish within a day or two. The sources and reception stuff will be completed tomorrow. I just thought to tell you that because I don't want you to think I'm ignoring the review. I just have alot of stuff in real life that is getting alot of my attention. I only have about a few minutes at a time to get on and I usually do what takes me a second or two then get off. I hope you understand, I'm grateful for the review so I don't want you to think you are reviewing it for no reason. You can see I don't have alot of time by reading it and seeing all the probelms within it that are simple things to catch. I don't think I've read the full thing through since I nominated it. I feel you deserve to know my situation.--WillC08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me in the loop, but it must be stressed that you have a week to do these two fairly small edits and real life always come first. Don't stress about not having the time to do it now, just do so when you get a free minute in the coming week. Talk to you then. Someoneanother15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll have them fixed here in a minute. I have sometime today. I'm home schooled and I'm trying to get done so I can go back to public school. I have to finish the year I'm in before I can go back or get enough of it done that I can go back. That is mainly why I do not have alot of time.--WillC17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the sources and did a little copyedit. Now I'm working on the reception. And to make sure, what is you want me to do with the Sun article? Just to be clear. To improve the article I want to make sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.--WillC20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for listing it as a GA. Now I have two GA articles. Now after I work on it I might, if I have enough time, take it to FA. But that is probably in unforeseeable future. Thanks.--WillC19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, remember me? I've taken your idea about The Sun into account and decided to do the same for a few other articles. Right now I'm having trouble in finding a review like the one from Sacrifice for the article Lockdown (2008). Now I'm never on The Sun's website, so I do not really know how to get around. If you would be so kind and to look and see if they have a review like the one from Sacrifice up for Lockdown I would really appreciate it?--WillC15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(Remove indent) Hey, of course I remember you :) There's an article on Lockdown here, all you need to do is use google, type the name of the event, leave "The Sun" in speech marks like that and include the name of the promoter, TNA, and out it pops as the first result. It would be good to see some extra critique of the events but don't get distracted from the Wrestling Project's priorities in terms of seats and sales information. Reviewing Sacrifice was a good experience, hoping to do some more in the future. Someoneanother15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This will help get Lockdown to FA. I'll remember that. I try to help the reviewer, I do what I'm told even if I might not agree with. Well I hope to work with you again in the future. Maybe you and me can become wikifriends or whatever you call it. You and me probably will work together again since I'm the only TNA expander. I have 40 some ppvs to expand and all are going to GA. I'll have two in this next month up at GAN. Well thanks for the review. This has helped.--WillC16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, read the review and fixed the issues you noted to the best of my abilities. However, I'm stumped on the last section, where you give the following:
What makes Totalvideogames and Planet Dreamcast reliable?
Ref #28 is a press release, please cite it as one.
I have no experience with checking the verifiability of sources, so I don't know if they're reliable. As for Ref 28, how do I cite a press release? The Clawed One (talk)
Oh, I'm also not sure how to fill out the templates for images. The Clawed One (talk)
I've removed the PlanetDreamcast source and incorporated the AllGame one hastily but suitably. As you review the other sources, I will draw one thing to mind, as I was warned one source might be challenged.
The site is "Gaming Intelligence Agency" is sourced twice, and seems to be an archive of an old site rather than an active one. However, I am confident their information is valid - an IGN article sources them as a source for an article on Soul Reaver, and GIA themselves source in a site called "videogames.com", which we now know as Gamespot. Based on one established reliable site sourcing them, and another being sourced by them, I am confident in considering GIA reliable for the two sourcings it is used for. The Clawed One (talk)
Thank you very much, good sir. Seven months of work finally pays off. Thanks once again for reviewing and for passing the article. The Clawed One (talk)
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.
Just writing here that I'm glad to see you're still contributing to our little corner of Wikipedia in an amazing manner, a little less than a year after I told you this in the form of a barnstar. I'm not one to overdo that kind of thing, so this message will have to do. User:Krator (tc) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on re-rating the article as C-class. Very few unreleased games are able to create a respectable reception section, mostly only when there has been a turbulent development process for a high-profile game. At the moment, Empire: Total War has no reception information available, so the information is as comprehensive and complete as verifiable sources allow. A lack of information in a certain area where it can't be verified shouldn't be held against an article (I know its vapourware, but StarCraft: Ghost reached FA and it doesn't really have any major reception data in it beyond the mention of one listing on Wired). As such, I think it should probably be B-class until it is released, when extra sources that highlight an obvious gap in comprehensiveness will appear. I'm not going to change it back myself though, I'll leave that in your hands as to whether you wish to take my argument into account or not. -- Sabre (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the reception info not being there will resolve itself before or during the game's release, it isn't included in the article because it isn't out there to take, but that will change with time. With Ghost the assumption is reversed, it is unlikely to be released, so it is treated as a finished product. The intention wasn't to do the article down, it's a GA candidate in the making, just to reflect that it has reached the highest rating it can until the next major event in its history has passed. Rating it B before the fact means that the rating devalues the moment significant reception information arrives. IMO it's better to move up to that level when the information is there and having the rating stick for good, rather than having a moving target to chase after because a predicted event has taken place. Someoneanother08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. I'm having problems trying to get the wording right on a couple of points, if its not to your liking, could you see if you could get it to how you mean? Thanks for the review. -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Iji
I moved the article on "Iji" to your userspace, because... well, frankly, you didn't say anything about the game to indicate how it's notable compared to any other of the thousands of freeware games made with Game Maker, so I would have been within my rights to delete it. Here's your chance to actually show why the article should exist. DS (talk) 14:29, 24 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.
Hi. Just wanted to congratulate you for the good work on Godzilla Generations. I couldn't comment on the AFD because it has just been closed. Cheers, --Cattustalk20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you were the guy who reviewed Hit the Road at GAN and assessed Freelance Police, I figured you'd probably be the right person to seek a second opinion on this. Could you give User:S@bre/Sam & Max a brief go-over for me? Its not done yet, there's still a few holes in referencing for the existing prose, but I just want to make sure that someone else thinks its coming together reasonably well. Any feedback you could give on it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sabre (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've dealt with those issues. I've almost finished it now, with luck should be done by either later today or tomorrow. -- Sabre (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Prinny notes
Hey, I started adding a few of these to the article citing the World of Disgaea book but figured you'd be able to handle the distribution of the information into the article better than I atm. Either way, here's all the notes related to the little guys I gleamed from the book:
p. 77
Etna has a prinnie pouch
p. 84
Stands for "Penguin Minions"
They have a vast arsenal hidden in their bags (4th dimmension space)
Can grasp anything with hidden suction cups on their flippers
Explode when they hit something too hard
Many seem to be masochists
Approx 100cm tall, though height varies
Facial expressions do not change much
Ties around chest area varies as a means to tell each of them apart
Their skin feels like a regular costume
Starts perspiring when their emotions change
p. 100
Unknown why they explode in the first place.
p. 155
Regular and Big Sis plushies
Hats and prinnie pouch merchandise
I'm sure it will, thanks for taking the time. I might not be able to deal with this promptly as my time and enthusiasm are running very low ATM, but I will be monitoring sources running up to the release of Prinny. Someoneanother18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As well as the usual niggles which I won't bore you with, I've found that the time I spend actually contributing is dwarfed by the time spent hunting for sources which I end up never using, and looking over hollow discussions about discussions. It isn't a productive use of my time, it isn't a fun use of my time, I've got a stack of video games I haven't played which is growing and a head full of ideas for games of my own. If I spent as much time learning to use Game Maker or Flash as I do dithering about here then I'd be pushing out games worth playing instead of writing about the work of others. All that said I may fall off the wagon as I did before and return, but hopefully I'll be too busy. It was nice working with you, take care and have a great Christmas. Someoneanother13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You've been conspicuous in your absence. My worst worries are true, and you've decided to leave. But don't look back :) There is much more to life than Wikipedia. Good luck! Randomran (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well crap. I must say that it always sucks when a good editor decides to leave, but I can certainly understand why. And as Randomdan points out, real life trumps Wiki-life. Take care and good luck in whatever you do. (Guyinblack25talk16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
Nice of you to say but it's not as though I was doing much anyway :) I will probably make gnome edits here and there, which aren't time consuming, but I'm going to keep as far as possible from anything too involving. Someoneanother19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Wikipedia: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Wikipedia defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Wikipedia.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Wikipedia article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Wikipedia and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Someone another/Archive 2 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject HorrorParticipant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir(talk)00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Something I've kept meaning to do for awhile now
This issue we are trying a new type of newsletter feature: "Featured editor". This is a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Video games project as well as the roles they fill. If you enjoyed this new feature and would like to see similar interviews in future issues, please drop us a note at the VG newsletter talk page.
David Fuchs (also known as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), is a long time video games editor that has written a large number of the project's Featured articles. He has been ranked high on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, and has assisted in reviewing and editing more many. Recently David has begun to assist with image reviews for Featured article candidates, and branched out into other types of articles in addition to video games. He can normally been seen on the project's talk page offering advice and his input on the various discussion taking place there.
What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
I got involved due in part to (I believe, my memory is fuzzy) finding the site while doing research for Advanced Placement Europen History during high school. My earliest contributions (in December 2005) were creating topics based on what I learned, as well as creating an article for my high school with another friend. I soon became involved with editing topics related to Halo video game franchise, specifically the article on the parasitic Flood.
What got you involved in writing Featured articles?
I think for most editors it's a shiny accomplishment you are striving for, and natural for most editors to try and get an FA. I first nominated an article for FA in 2007, after about a year of inactivity onwiki; it didn't pass as it was poorly written and didn't follow our guidelines for writing about fiction; I also took a couple of tries to get my first video game FA (Halo 2).
What article(s) are you most proud of writing or exemplifies your best work?
I suppose Myst is a sort of accomplishment I can point to; I started work on the article on May 2 2008, when it looked like this, and submitted it to Featured Article Candidates one day later. I think that's some kind of record, but I dunno. In terms of being a good read or something I'm very happy with, however, I'd have to look at my more recent work, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Bone Wars.
How do you pick the articles you work on?
Whatever hits me. There's many articles I haven't gotten around to editing and improving as planned because another article has caught my fancy.
What advice would you give to editors seeking to write quality articles?
In the words of one of my favorite cartoon characters when I was a child, "We must do reeea-search!" Even in video games, online sources don't usually cut it. Even after getting an article to FA, make sure you continually trawl the internet and elsewhere for more information to add to the topic.
Note: This is an abridged version. To read the full interview, click here.
I am retired, but I've got some free time ATM so I'm trying to tie up some loose ends at the video game project, and in this case there's a DRV waiting to happen due to the unusual amount of attention the game is getting already, far easier for me to knock something servicable together now and stop more red tape. Thanks for unlocking it :) Someoneanother13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Someone another. 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.
On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail.
Second opinion: This reviewer has passed this article, but requires second editor's assessment to promote this article to A-class.
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
My thanks for this AfD. In a short time you showed courtesy to the article's author, respect for the effort put into it, concern for truth by doing the research that we're supposed to do when you would've gotten away with omitting it, impartiality in placing the article's merits over any possible ideologies about what Wikipedia should include, and readiness to cooperate. All in all, an example of how we must treat each other now that creating the largest reference work in human history has turned out to be the easy part. Kudos. --Kizor 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
