Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Guitar Hero/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guitar Hero

[edit]
Main page Articles
Guitar Hero Guitar Hero (video game) - Guitar Hero II - Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Guitar Hero: On Tour - Guitar Hero III Mobile - Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Guitar Hero World Tour - Guitar Hero: Metallica - Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - List of songs in Guitar Hero - List of songs in Guitar Hero II - List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

The FLC for List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock is pending but as the format and approach follows the other lists, I do not expect this to be a problem.

I will note that there are three other GH articles for games that have not been released, and thus presently excluded from this FTC but are expected to be needed to be added after release:

  • Guitar Hero World Tour - Due out in Oct, so expect to have this, and its song list, to GA/FL by Jan 09.
  • Guitar Hero: Metallica - Due out before Mar 09 - exact date not yet set. Expect this and its song list to be GA/FL three months after.
  • Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - Due out before end of year, exact date not yet set. Expect this (possibly with song list) to be GA/FL three months after.

I will note that those that have helped with all the articles have kept these to high quality - most of the GAs could probably be FAs with little trouble, just don't want to flood the FAC list with these articles. The above future game articles are being kept at the same level of scrutiny by wannabe addons without valid proof as well. --MASEM 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've been waiting for this topic to appear. You really should have waited for the FLC to finish, though. --PresN (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - out of curiosity, what would the FT image be? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. Firstly (and much less importantly), you should have waited for List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock to pass its FLC. Secondly (and very importantly), this fails criteria 3.c which states that the 3 not-yet-released games you listed should in fact be included in the topic, following each undergoing "a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed". And before anybody points to Kingdom Hearts or Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games, these topics are currently under retention for also failing this criteria.
I'm very impressed with the amount of work you've done though, this just isn't quite there yet - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose: Rst20xx is right, the three unreleased games will need to undergo peer review before this topic can be complete. Given the amount of time it would take to complete the peer reviews, it might be best to withdraw the nomination until this is done. That way the GHIII list will have also passed FL and the topic would pass with flying colors. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The problem is that with the promise of more GH titles coming out, there is never going to be a point where we will not have future GH games. I did ask about this before [1], and other comments since suggested this is a reasonable approach (leaving out unreleased games) when the topic is never expected to be reasonably completed [2]. --MASEM 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And more specifically a problem here, at the present, GH: Metallica and GHOT:Decades can only stay as stubs because those articles reflect pretty much exactly what is known on the topic. I can appreciate getting a PR on GHWT, but at the rate PRs go and the games are being introduced to the series, by the time the GHWT is PRd, we'd have more info on one of the above, meaning that would need a PR, and during all this, another new game would be announced, starting as a stub, starting a vicious circle. --MASEM 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you have to wait for the series to finish, just for a lull in the release schedule. The cycle from when a string of games are announced to when the next set is announced should be long enough for the three articles to go under peer review. Put two up at the same time or a day apart if need be. I'm sure reviewers will be sympathetic; just mention the reason for the peer review. See KH 358/s PR and KH BBS PR.
    I sure if you space each one about 4-5 days from each other, all three could be peer reviewed in a month. The fact that they are so short will actually help speed the process along some. Another solution for Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades is to merge it to Guitar Hero: On Tour in a "Sequel" section. There are ways to make this work and still stay within the criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The rules actually changed after those discussions you linked took place (scroll down a bit), and they changed specifically to deal with this kind of situation. So that discussion is now incorrect. The reason the rules were changed was because future/ongoing articles are still part of topics even if they haven't happened yet, and hence should be included even if it is only as audited articles. I appreciate your comments about some of the peer reviews being pretty pointless, but you only need one sweep of peer reviews, not continuous cycles of them, and I hope if you think about it you'll realise that given these articles should be (and need to be!) included, this is the best possible compromise for doing things.
    And to answer your "moving targets" question, I'm sure you can see that in this kind of topic the target will always be moving, and that this including-future-events rule simply means it's moving slightly more. But here's the rules as they stand: once the topic is featured, if a game is released, or a new article is created, then you'll have 3 months from that date to bring the article to GA or get the article peer reviewed, respectively, and then added to the topic. Which seems to be a reasonable amount of time to me - rst20xx (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: These articles have all been raised to a sufficiently high quality. And even though the unreleased games are not GA status, there are no problems with them. Two are stubs with neutral, completely verified information -- short and sweet. There's virtually nothing to peer review. The other is Guitar Hero World Tour, which is pretty well referenced and well written, with no tags for ongoing problems. If criterion the 3.c peer review requirement is not fulfilled because it requires the formality of opening a peer review request and documenting suggestions and feedback, I'd happily fast-track this on my to-do list and offer constructive feedback to help this topic reach featured status. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on the fast tracking. I'd be more than willing to give a peer review to all three articles. If all the review comments are given within the first couple of days, then the peer reviews will be closed sooner. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I've started the GHWT peer review for this purpose, figuring that is the one that really needs it. --MASEM 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And now both Decades and Metallica are in the PR queue (though again, I doubt those to be a problem). --MASEM 13:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - Guitar Hero III's song list is featured, and all three new game articles are added and peer reviewed, so that should take what, 9 days? and this stays here for at least two weeks? Plenty of time, but get on it! Let me know if you need a peer reviewer :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThough I only helped premote one of these articlesbut I have noticed that these articles are of very high quality and are very impresive. Gears of War 2 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Does not satisfy criterion three due to List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. That list was incorrectly identified as featured in the {{Topicnom}}—I've fixed it. Pagrashtak 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to comment that the FTC requirements allow for open FLC's, but I re-read and found out I was mistaken, so yes, technically, until the FLC is over with for the GH3 songlist, (irregardless of the 3 future game articles) I can't bring this to FT. If the admins watching this feel its necessary to maintain minimum standards, I would have no problem if they wish to quick-close this FTC. I will say that both the GH:WT article and the GH:Metallica article have been PR'd and issued dealt with, GH:On Tour Decades is awaiting comments, so if there are no problems, after the GH3 songlist is promoted, I can then bring this back along with the three other articles. --MASEM 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Arctic Gnome is keeping this open until these issues are resolved, so if you want to leave it up anyway, that might be easiest... rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, given this, and that all questioned articles are in the appropriate processes, I have included the 3 articles listed above pending conclusion of their PR. --MASEM 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And sanity check is that this would make 16 total articles, 5 presently FA/FL, with the one at FLC making it 6, raising the percentage of FA/FLs in the topic from 32% to 37%. --MASEM 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some articles and lists in the topic are below good articles. Martarius (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Conditional Support. Woah there, sonny... you're really jumping the gun here. First of all, you couldn't wait until the list of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock FLC was finished, which is discouraged in the featured topic criteria recommendations. Secondly, you couldn't wait until the three other Guitar Hero games even came out and had sufficient time to become good or featured articles. Realistically, the chances of this featured topic being demoted after these games are released are very high. Let's take a few deep breaths and wait awhile before calling this topic "featured". Xnux the Echidna 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, I did misread the FTC (thinking that it was ok for a FLC to be in progress in the same way a FAC could be as long as it wasn't affecting the 20% requirement), but it's been suggested that this FTC is still open as to resolve that issue. As for the other three games, I've explained above - this is going to be a ever-persistent cycled for the foreseeable future (next two-three years), in that there will always like be a GH future game article open that cannot obtain GA/FA state until the game is released, by which time a new GH game has been announced to be released in the future. (I know it sounds like I'm crystal-balling this, but this is reasonably accurate of the picture that Activision has been painting about the future of the series). Based on Rst20xx's comments above, the solution here is to get the current future games through a PR (which they are progressing right now); when each game is released, we'll need to get it to a minimum GA within three months (a task I don't expect to have a problem with given how these articles are being maintained). This is only current "lull" in releases where it makes sense to bring forward, knowing full well that to keep it an FT we cannot be lax on future articles. --MASEM 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'd like to wait until the Guitar Hero series stops churning out games for a while before making this a featured topic, but I guess you video game Wikipedians are all too eager to get this ongoing stream of video games to featured status. Very well then, if list of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock passes its FLC and the other three future games pass their peer reviews, then I will give my support. Otherwise, this topic will have to go back to the Wikipedia landfill of incomplete topics. Xnux the Echidna 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the people who have worked so hard on these articles don't want to wait 5, 10, or more years to nominate this topic, so let's give them the time they need to get this done :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 3c states "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, (...), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review". So currently this fails the criteria as Metallica, Decades and World Tour have not done so. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note - the FLC for the list of songs for GH3 failed due to lack of input, and though I've resubmitted it, technically that would be extending this issue. If this is considered a problem now, please close out this FTC and I will bring it back once the PR and FLC are completed. --MASEM 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold - this is taking a long time, but it would take even longer if it was withdrawn only to be resubmitted. So I suggest we consider this On hold until the Peer Reviews and FLC are completed - rst20xx (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else I think is worth considering: I don't see the song lists as being essential to the topic. Perhaps they could be removed from this nomination, and added in later in a supplementary nomination. The three peer reviews have received feedback and should be closed in little more than a week. So that would shorten the amount of time needed for this nomination. A bit of extra work overall, but something to consider. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The list of songs for GH3 is eligible for GA or FA, but hasn't passed. For that reason, I oppose. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bookkeeping note - GH On Tour Decade's PR has been completed (marked above); the other two PRs should be automatically closed in the next 48hrs (IIRC). --MASEM 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - Over 18% of this topic nominated for "Featured topic" status is less than WP:GA-quality, and has not even been through an attempt at a GA Review. Before asserting that Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status - it would be nice for the nominator to demonstrate that they have at least tried to get those articles up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I realise now I should have been more clear in our previous discussion - I was only referring to audited articles of limited subject matter. These 3 articles are audited articles of inherent instability, as they pertain to games which have yet to be released. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that such articles can't pass GA/FL, and this to me makes complete sense - what's the point of making something a GA, if it's only going to change drastically soon? The situation is even worse for "Seasons of" topics, where one season is currently ongoing, and so there is new information every single week. And as a result, I personally would not push for inherently unstable articles to go through GA before being included as limited, as the result is a foregone conclusion, and rightly so - rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have stated before, to not even have tried for WP:GAC/WP:FLC seems to me to be a defeatist way to go. Especially when the amount of material in a featured topic candidate that is of less than WP:GA quality is greater than 18 percent. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the three articles are about unreleased games, which makes them ineligible for GA and FA on the grounds of stability. After they are released they can go progress up the quality scale. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I know that articles on near-future events will not pass GA; they fail the broadness requirements, I've seen the discussions for it; nor do I feel appropriate it is right taking half-an-article to GA which basically means the other half can be added without a GA oversight. I agree that a PR review is good (and all three are finishing theirs right now), but wasting the already-burdened GA time by taking articles I know will fail seems like a poor step. --MASEM 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is also the issue that the peer reviews for Guitar Hero World Tour and Guitar Hero: Metallica are both not completed/archived. This should have been a step addressed and completed before nominating for WP:FTC, IMO. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right here, but if you look higher up, there's a line in the nom, and at that point it was put on hold until those peer reviews are completed. There hasn't really been much discussion since then, until now - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt, you are quite right that this should have been taken care of before nominating. But Masem nominated this topic in good faith after posting a question on WT:FTC. The rules altered from the time he asked his question to the time he nominated, which is why the articles were not reviewed before hand. This is a special case that has remained open to cut back on the administrative tasks or closing this nom and reopening another. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    (edit conflict, reply to Rst20xx (talk · contribs)) - Ah, quite right, thanks for pointing that out. Incidentally I was also of the opinion that this featured topic candidate discussion, of which I was a significant contributor to the topic itself - should not have been started until all articles had successfully passed WP:GA - though at that time some were still in WP:GAC. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is in the recommendations on WP:FT? that such things do not occur. Arctic.gnome, who is in charge around here, tends to put things on hold until these problems are fixed, instead of removing them, because it lessens the administrative tasks. If I were in charge, I would probably rather remove them (though I can see where he's coming from, it is a lot of admin) - rst20xx (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO that type of thing could possibly be grounds for a simple quickfail. Similar to trying to nominate something at WP:GAC with loads of {{citeneeded}} problems - the WP:GAC process even has "quick fail criteria" specifically intended for this type of usage. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, feel free to propose a rule change to make this a quickfail - rst20xx (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better if someone does that who is more of a regular to the whole process. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, you go for it, and I'll support it - rst20xx (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Oh fine, I'll bring it, but from both of us - rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Done - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating a topic that requires three peer reviews to get around the quality requirement is asking a bit much. While this may technically meet the requirements, it might be better to wait until the series stabilizes a bit before completing all the necessary proofing to get this promoted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree strongly with this comment by Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern is that there is effectively no point in the near-term future (next few years) where we can expect the series to be stable (no future games in the queue). I agree that topics that have immediate instability should not be passed - say, a season of a TV brought forward before the last few episodes have aired is obviously premature, but also in that case there is a sure-fire bookend to the topic. This is not the case here. I have targeted this period knowing that the most recently releases (Aerosmith and On Tour) were well-covered prior to release and thus knowing the turnaround to GA/FA/FL for those would be simple, and with other editors focused on these articles, have made sure that the future games are in a state that once released the upgrading to GA/FA/FL should be easy. --MASEM 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bookkeeping note: World Tour's PR has closed and is marked above. --MASEM 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Guitar_Hero/archive1&oldid=1140383720"