Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sumbmission

I'd like to submit an article for the next newsletter:

STARTSTARTSTARTSTARTSTARTSTART

Data suggest an increasing lack of interest

Over the last two days I've updated the Traffic statistics and Article statistics pages using data for the last five months. The data was collected using User:Henrik's excellent Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool as well as the Video game articles by quality statistics table that is regularly updated by User:WP 1.0 bot.

  • Articles by quality.
    Articles by quality.
  • Articles by importance.
    Articles by importance.
  • Project page views per day.
    Project page views per day.
  • Task force page views per day.
    Task force page views per day.

While the number of articles is still increasing, there seems to be a downward trend in interest across the board among casual viewers judging by the number of page views. The last time I updated the stats in January this was explained (sorry, I can't remember by whom) as being due to a slump in the winter months, and that views would pick up again in the summer. This does not (yet) seem to be the case.

While admittedly the summer has just begun, a decline is fairly evident. For instance, the number of project page views has dropped from 950 views per day in May of 2008 to 650 views per day in May of 2009. Also, the number of page views increased for the two months before May a year ago, but decreased for the two months before May this year. Page views for our sister projects and task forces have dropped to less than half of last year's numbers. (Note that projects that were rounded up and turned into task forces are shown with the other task forces, though the stats are continuous.)

Nifboy says the drop in the total number of articles in July of 2008 is due to him removing project tags from articles that had been redirected, and were therefore skewing the totals.

Other trends over the past five months include a continuing decline in the number of articles with unassessed or no importance, and a negligible increase in the number of Mid-, High- and Top-rated articles. Articles for Deletion remains unpredictable, though deletion remains the most common action.

Finally, I'd just like to say that these statistics don't necessarily reflect activity within our project; rather, it merely reflects the interest among general viewers. For an analysis of project activity I would need to do an extensive review of edit and change logs, as well as Talk pages.

Past discussions on the subject:

ENDENDENDENDENDEND

OK, thanks guys! I hope you like the article! SharkD (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, sorry for the repeated edits to my post over the last half hour! SharkD (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
After a quick read through, it looks pretty good to me. I'll give it a full read later today. Thanks for the submission. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
SharkD- Do you happen to have a relevant chart or graph? Something like that would be a nice addition. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
I added some of the charts. The rest can be found in the articles I linked to. SharkD (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
PS, a bot to update all these pages would be nice, as it requires a lot of manual work. SharkD (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You might want to ping User:MZMcBride on this. He runs a database report bot. –xenotalk 21:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Next issue

Not that we're in any hurry, but ideas for what will be on tap next issue (I'm assuming it's Q3, correct?) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Third quarter is correct. I'd say go with the feature you wrote about FA Maintenance. Feel free to tweak and expand as you see fit. No need to worry about everything fitting in just right anymore.
I was thinking of maybe interviewing User:Mrwojo for the Featured editor. He pretty much got the VG project up and running many moons ago. I think it'd be interesting to find out some history of the project and get his thoughts on its current state. Any thoughts or other editors in mind? Wouldn't hurt to have a list of candidates as a rough outline.
The rest is just keeping up with stats and news. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Another user we should interview is K1Bond007. He hasn't been active for some time now, but was very much the driving force behind the project in the first few years since being established. Mrwojo did start the project, but was not so active after that. JACOPLANE • 2009-07-2 17:22
I just noticed the "Reference library" is still labeled "Magazines" under "Project Navigation" in the Q2 issue. Not a big problem, but something that should be fixed before Q3 is released. -sesuPRIME 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I updated the current issue with the new link. We'll keep it in mind for the next one. Thanks for the heads up. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
For the next issue, we should perhaps include any new task forces that have been launched in the "News and announcements" section. JACOPLANE • 2009-07-2 17:18
Is there a log or archive of such additions? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Few are ever officially announced and we normally stumble upon them a couple months after they've been created. We can add the ones we know about to the news section. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
Perhaps a bot could monitor new task forces by watching Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and reporting on new 1st level child pages. –xenotalk 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's possible, that would be very helpful. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
I've asked my favourite bot-writer for help on this. –xenotalk 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have two suggestions:
  1. "Project At a Glance" could include how many articles of each type (FA, GA, etc.) were promoted since the last issue, in addition to the overall total.
  2. The "Project Navigation" section could be placed in a drop-down box, hidden by default.
Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I've fine with keeping the delivery page as short as possible. So hiding the project navigation is cool with me. But I don't think any more stats need to be added beyond what's already there. The number of promotion are already on the quality changes subpage, and I think it's good to give readers interesting tidbits there. It should hopefully get them to read the whole subpage. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
Personally, I think the project navigation is small enough to not need to be collapsed. I think the extra step of expanding the section is worse. If space is really that critical, the text could be smaller. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I was a bit surprised by how large the newsletter is, and anyone who's familiar enough with WP:VG to subscribe to its newsletter probably already knows their way around the project, so collapsing the navigation doesn't seem to take away anything. Also, would it be possible to place "Project At a Glance" and "Content" side-by-side? I realize some people are using smaller monitors, but neither section takes up much horizontal space. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the logic to it. Not sure if it's entirely necessary though. What did you have in mind for the structure? A total of four columns evenly split between at a glance and content, three columns split two to one between at a glance and content, or something else? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I suppose giving one column to each section would be best. With those side-by-side and the navigation section collapsed our Project's newsletter will look sleek and damn sexy! -sesuPRIME 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Interview suggestions

Here's a running list of possible editors to interview for future issues. To keep this list manageable, I suggest that nominations should have a number of editors second it (don't know have many though). A max number of nominations wouldn't be a bad idea either. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

We can keep a running group and just grab someone when we feel like it, like WP:FCDW. Personally since I know so little about the old days, I'd be interested in grabbing Mrwojo and K1 for a joint review about prehistory. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to do an interview about the early days of the project, you should also email Thunderbrand (he's left the project but might respond to email still) who was very, very active in the early days. He single-handedly maintained the old WP:GCOTW when it was still a massive success (evidence). An interview with the old-timers could be really interesting IMO. JACOPLANE • 2009-07-2 18:26
Also, if there is interest, why not have more than one interview featured? JACOPLANE • 2009-07-2 18:19
David- A dual interview with Mrwojo and K1Bond007 came to mind also. Depending on how it's done, it could make a better feature than a featured editor interview. Another pair that came to mind is User:Krator and I think User:UnaLaguna. Those two were our main assessors at WP:VG/A for a long time. I want to say one other helped assess articles with them, but my memory is fuzzy. Maybe Jaco remembers.
Jaco- Absolutely. That would also be helpful if we don't have a feature ready to go.
On a side note, how about maxing the list at 8 or 10? Just so it doesn't get overrun with nominations. Not anticipating that, but better safe that sorry. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
We might want to lump together some noms with common threads, for example the assessment chaps or the gnomes who keep things running projectwide, the article writers, the grizzled ancients. Something along the lines of [1], video game oriented of course. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Gave it a shot below. Not sure how to handle the nominations though. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
We handle it in an ad hoc manner, obviously. I'm all up for emailing/pinging the "early members" people, see how responds, and then draft some questions for them to answer (some general they can all answer, and then the harder part would be some specific ones for each). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists

List the editor along with a reason for interviewing.

Important early members
  1. User:Mrwojo- Pretty much got the VG project up and running
  2. User:K1Bond007- Driving force behind the project in the first few years since being established
  3. Thunderbrand- Driving force behind the early Gaming Collaboration.
Assessors
  1. User:Kung Fu Man- Currently very active in assessments.
  2. User:Krator- One of the early assessors that kept the Assessment department going.
  3. User:UnaLaguna- One of the early assessors that kept the Assessment department going.
Project gnomes
  1. User:MrKIA11- Been very active with a lot of back office efforts that have kept the project running smoothly.
  2. Guyinblack25- runs the Newsletter
Article writers
  1. Gary King- one of the user with the most video game FAs to his credit, and he's done a fair number of FT as well.

Deleted GAs

Should GAs that are deleted be on the "delisted" list? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Why? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Because we haven't in the past. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Give me an example since I've been have for only a year. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the life cycle of the article was: created, passed GAN, listed at AfD, and deleted? The situation seems so obscure, I'm kind of at a loss. :-p Was it delisted during the AfD process or before? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
What article? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Both Guitar Hero: On Tour & Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades were merged to Guitar Hero: On Tour series back in April. There was only a discussion on the talk page, no AfD. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well crap on a stick... My gut tells me that since it was never "formally" delisted, we don't need to worry about it. However, the talk page for the redirect shows its status as a delisted GA. I guess it wouldn't hurt to list it, maybe with a footnote of some kind. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
I suppose so (I mean, if it's been merged, it sure as heck can't be a GA redirect :P) Did we catch Nicole (Dead or Alive)? (It got formally delisted, but it's since been merged.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Nicole was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20090701/Quality content#May. Anything that Article alerts catch, like formal delistings, we normally add it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Did you know? Problem

Does anyone know what articles were on Did you know? I haven't caught up with it since the Article Alerts was Temporarily down. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Recent additions and Wikipedia:Recent additions 246#31 July 2009. I try to peek at the main page regularly for video game articles. I don't recall seeing any showing up in that section, but I could have easily missed some because of the frequency it's updated. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Third quarter issue

It's about that time again, the "We need a feature and an interview" time. We have David's FA maintenance ready to go, but we need an interview. Any ideas?

David- What do you think about providing some example articles for the points in your feature? I'll help out if you're short on time. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

I have no idea who you wanna interview... kinda burned right now, can't particularly think in a constructive manner... as for my feature, add FAs if you can think of them, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of how to expressly link to the issues (I didn't write the article with any particular FAs in mind, just generalities over a broad spectrum.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll try to get to it this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Had some time today, so I took a crack at it (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft#Feature: Video game FA maintenance). Feel free to tweak, change, remove, etc. any changes I made.
How about User:Gary King for the interview? He pops in and out of the project, but is one of the more active contributors to Good and Featured video game content. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Sorry for the lack of a response 'till now. I've looked over your feature, it looks good (couldn't have done that myself :P) As for the interview, sure, let's run with Gary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There is an RFC at WT:MOS-JA that was brought up directly because of our guideline.陣内Jinnai 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
David- If you have the time, can you contact Gary about an interview and, if he agrees, prepare some questions for him? Let me know if you're short on time.
Jinnai- I'll add a news item to the draft. But because I'm not completely familiar with the discussion, could you expand, copy edit, or whatever it as you see necessary? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
The main isssue is whether romaji is required for every instance of Japanese writing in an article. There is consensus that when the pronuciation is radically different from then it should. The question is where to draw the linke. ie, should キングダムハーツ, (Kingdom Hearts) require the romaji "Kingudamu Hātsu" as it they are both English words and the pronuciation is similar, but not the same. There are other tersiary considerations to this hiragana is sometimes used instead of katakana for stylistic reasons, sometimes originally Japanese words become common in English but not always with the same pronuciation (Anime) and a few English words with kanji, 珈琲 (coffee). There are also other foreign words translated into Japanese from latin alphabets and questions as to whether those should be translated as well.
There is also tersiary issue of whether MOS-JA supercedes our article guidelines.陣内Jinnai 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The RfC tag was removed due to lack of discussion. I think you should still point to it though, just noting that it recently expired (today) as the issues remains really unsolved.陣内Jinnai 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Gary got back to me, but unfortunately says he's busy and won't be able to do it this go-around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well crap on a stick... How about User:Kung Fu Man? He's been very active in assessments and cleaning up many abysmal character articles. If you have anybody else in mind, you can always surprise us too. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC))
KFM is up for it, I just gotta draft some questions... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted some questions and Kung Fu Man responded (they are at the bottom of the draft page). If you have any more, post them and let him know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. If I think of anything I'll post it, but they look good to me. Thanks David. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Hey, who's the Featured Editor of this quarter? If we haven't decided yet, I would recommmend PresN. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally forgot about this (me and Guy jabbered a bit on who, but I never got around to contacting someone.) I myself am rather unfamiliar with PresN's work—Gamer, would you be willing to take the lead and start an interview? (You can use our general questions from past interviews as a guide.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Gamer- It would be greatly appreciated if you could take the lead on the interview. If we think of any, David and I will add in extra questions after PresN does your batch.
On a related note we need a feature too. The only draft close to being done is the one about task forces, but it was written probably over a year ago and doesn't seem as accurate anymore. I can try to update it. Unless anybody else has other ideas. Maybe an editorial? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
It would be no problem interviewing PresN. I actually wanted to interview him anyways. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, go for it (hopefully he's willing!) @Guy: what were you thinking for an editorial? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just one editor's viewpoint on something. Doesn't have to be policy-related, but something we deal with as video game editors. An editorial on collaboration is what came to my mind; I figured I could put one together quickly.
Other ideas could be the validity of some processes (VG editors reviewing VG articles for PR or GAN), project activity levels, pros and cons of video game-related sources, pros and cons of IP editors, etc. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
Well, since you're on the ball with what you want to do, the floor is yours :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
O.k, PresN agreed to an interview and I have questions for him to answer. Do anyone of you guys want to add another question or two for him to answer? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I put up a rough draft of my answers; I might polish them a bit more later. Let me know if you have any other questions. --PresN 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone update the "New Article" section? It hasn't been updated at all. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
MrKIA11 normal gets those before the newsletter goes out. If he doesn't, I can do it real quick the week of January 6th. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

4th quarter issue

Sorry for waiting until the last minute on the editorial, but it's on the draft page now. It was harder to come up with than I thought. The topic is about being bold rather than collaboration. I know there isn't much time, but an extra pair of eyes would be appreciated.

Other than that, is the content ready to be transfer to the subpages? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

How exactly are the featured editors decided for each issue? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A previous discussion started a suggestion list, which we've loosely followed. Recently though, someone makes a suggestion and we discuss it. Generally, if the editor has been around a while and made good, significant contributions there is little to discuss. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
Okay, thanks. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Q1 2010

Might as well start thinking about the future... Guy, did you have any particular ideas for what you wanted as a feature? How about editors? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a retrospective about the project? Something to chronicle our progress (founding, early efforts, first group of quality articles, etc.) for many that may not know how far we've actually come as a project. Not sure how feasible that is though. I'm certainly open to other suggestions. Maybe somebody wants to give the editorial idea another go? Mine was difficult to come up with and didn't really turn out how I hoped.
I think we still owe Gary King an interview. He was busy or we were late or something one or two times. I forget the why's, but I don't want to forget about his interview. :-p Can you drop him a line and see if he's still interested? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
About the Gary King interview, did anyone ask him yet? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just did. Thanks for the reminder. ^__^ (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
He declined this time. Any other ideas? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Gary did suggest User:S@bre, who has been with the project for a while doing article writing and helping with project tasks. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
S@bre would be a good choice, methinks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we upgrade the newletter a bit? Why don't we have a comment board on the bottem of sections, like what the Wikipedia Signpost has, so we can get their opinions on the sections. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Is our readership really that big that we would really get comments? Seems like a lot of extra syntax for not much benefit. As for giving the page a lift, I'm all for it. As for a retrospective... that would certainly be a challenge. We'd need to see who's still around from the early days :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Content 7/09 8/09 9/09 10/09 11/09 12/09 1/10
Q2 Interview 93 30 38 38 17 36 29
Q2 Feature 89 21 23 17 15 24 26
Q2 News 75 26 27 15 9 22 15
Q2 Quality 90 31 34 27 13 21 12
Q3 Interview — — — 69 18 39 18
Q3 Feature — — — 50 17 23 12
Q3 News — — — 56 15 23 13
Q3 Quality — — — 60 21 32 16
Q4 Interview — — — — — — 52
Q4 Feature — — — — — — 53
Q4 News — — — — — — 48
Q4 Quality — — — — — — 47
Echoing David's comment, I think changing the appearance or format would be cool. My only thing is that we keep the subpages setup so we can track page views.
A comment section would be interesting, but I have no idea how they have it set up. If it's easy to implement I don't see the harm.
In regard to reader numbers, here are the view counts for the content subpages. Of course, I think a year's worth of data is needed to make better assumptions. But this is what we got so far.
  • Readership keeps going up, but the number of views on the first month of the releases seem to be decreasing. Not sure what to make of it.
  • One thing is surprising though. I didn't expect this many people to keep reading the content after the first month.
  • Something else to keep in mind, we've gotten few to no responses to things like the first featured editor, reader poll, and so far the first editorial.
A retrospective would be difficult, but I think if we start the process now and work bit by bit it can be done. I'm all for a backup plan just in case though. So keep those ideas coming. I think Jacoplane was around during some of that and is still around. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
Updated January's numbers so we can get a better picture. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

I expanded one of the old feature drafts. Input would be appreciated to see if it'll work for next quarter's feature. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Q2 2010

Any plans on tap for next quarter? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, nothing comes to mind. Also, my free time has sharply decreased. I barely have time to monitor changes to my articles, and I don't know how much I'll be able to continue to the newsletter anymore. :-\ I guess plan accordingly. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
Hm... I got one. How about something about Featured Lists? They look underrated in this Wikiproject, in my opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know next to nothing about featured lists in general, nothing about VG featured list. Would you be able to get on the horse for that one, GamerPro? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll try. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. I've always wondered why we didn't have more FLs, especially for the big name series. The only real hurdle to most of them is the tedium of sourcing and formatting. Maybe this will spur members to give our lists some more attention.
Gary King, Masem and myself have worked with video game FLs. Wouldn't hurt to hit one of us up for feedback/ideas. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
I would like to add that Deckiller has agreed to be interviewed this quarter. If there's any questions you like to ask, please. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Um, can anyone find last month's video-game related DYKs? The Article alerts is still down. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Q4 2010

Now that the newsletter is back up, we need an editor to interview. Anybody volunteers or suggestions? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Q1 2011

Since we did something on FL this time, I'd like to have one on FAs, specifically character articles since those seem to be amongst the hardest. I think having this would be really helpful.陣内Jinnai 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds smart. You wanna' take a go at starting a draft? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Right now i'm busy reforming our guidelines since it looks like it'll be over to a MOS. There is a strong push for this and since Arts and Anime & Manga are already there I don't think we should try to be a stick-in-the-mud. I'm also only know some of the basics, not enough to really go at it.陣内Jinnai 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Q2 2011

This one should note the mediation resolution (assuming it gets done, which it appears to be winding down) on using katakana names in Japanese articles.陣内Jinnai 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"On the Main Page" section of "News and announcements" has been saying "between October and December 2010" since Q4 2010. It should be "between April and June 2011" for Q2 2011. --Kusunose 11:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the find, Kusunose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Q3 2011

Does anyone have an idea for a feature or the next editor to be interviewed? GamerPro64 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Future features

Just throwing these out there to get the gears turning. Here are some ideas for future newsletter features.

  • Guest writers
    Have an someone with an outside perspective like User:Tony1, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Laser brain, or User:Dabomb87 write a feature about their area of expertise and what VG project members should consider when navigating the process.
  • Case studies
    Have the primary contributor(s) of an FA, FL or GA dissect the article and explain the choices and process of how they improved that particular article. Something much less generalized than we've done in the past.
  • Project history
    I believe David suggested this before: a feature (or series of features) that describe the early history of the project and how it has evolved.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Index page

FYI- I created an index of the newsletter's content: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Index.

It's something I've been meaning to create for a while because I found navigating the back issue links (mainly to make sure we didn't repeat content) cumbersome. It also provides links to all of the content we're released. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

I suggest that we add the index to the newsletter's top-bar between "previous" and "next". This will help navigation for those that wish to read back through old issues. I also suggest that we add the current issue into the index. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the current issue to the index now, but I'm not sure if I explained the addition of the index between "previous" and "next" properly. Basically, what I'm proposing is that whoever creates the new newsletter modify the portion of the header that looks like this:
Previous issue | Next issue
so that it looks more like this:
Previous issue | Index | Next issue
For reference, here is a copy of the current issue. Note the header doesn't include the index. Does anyone agree that it would be good to include the index here to aid in navigating old issues? -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and boldly implemented it for the current issue in this edit. Does that seem like a good idea? Is it worth repeating for future editions of the newsletter? -Thibbs (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Future interviewees

Who usually takes care of the featured editor section? Who selects and who interviews the victim? I think it would be a shame to do away with this section considering that there are a lot of people who have contributed hugely to the success of the wikiproject and who deserve to have their efforts spotlighted. Last quarter there was no featured editor. Q2 is quickly drawing to a close. Let's try to make sure we get one lined up this time. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So looking back through the archives I can see that Guyinblack25 used to be heavily involved in interviews, but it seems that he is now semiretired. It looks like he has never been a featured editor and he has certainly contributed enough to the project to deserve a feature. What do people think about featuring him in either this coming newsletter or in a future one (if he cannot be tracked down prior to the 4th)? If Guyinblack25 is unavailable for this newsletter then I would suggest an interview with Jacoplane since he has also been very involved in a number of WP:VG areas. Below I'm adding a table of suggestions for proposed future interviewees. These are the top 8 WP:VG editors I was able to identify according to breadth of involvement, but of course there are many other deserving editors out there. Sadly, some of the notable editors I examined haven't edited since 2009, so it would be good to catch some of them before they retire for good. I'd like some feedback on this table if possible. Have any of these editors been contacted in the past concerning possible interviews? Are there other ones that should be added to this list for consideration? -Thibbs (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it'd be appropriate to run a feature about someone if they have specifically asked not to be (in the case of Someone Another), but all of the other editors would be good for this newsletter edition. Has anyone started the interview for the current newsletter draft? Nomader (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was under the impression that he simply hadn't had the time for the interview when he was asked before, but I agree that if an editor asks to be excluded from the newsletter then his wishes should be respected. That should probably go for ambiguous cases as well. There are surely enough active WP:VG editors whose contributions could be highlighted without having to force unwilling editors into the limelight. -Thibbs (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't fret, there's never any harm in asking twice! I agree, I'm sure we can find someone for this latest issue. I've been thinking about getting more involved in writing this newsletter, so if you need any help and I'm still active a month from now (I tend to edit in spurts), let me know and I'll do my best to contribute a little here and there. Nomader (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty new here myself, but I've also been trying to get more involved since I quite like the idea of the newsletter - it's a record of the WikiProject that preserves the evolution of the place and memorializes its significant contributors. I'm a bit busy currently, but I should be freer to help out here in a few weeks. If any of the "old guard" here could give some advice or direction then that would be most appreciated. If not then perhaps we can make do. -Thibbs (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. If I drop off the face of the earth and you're looking for a hand, just drop a line on my talk page. It should send me an e-mail and I'll get right back to it. Nomader (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good articles total

How is that number calculated? It currently says 542 GAs, but looking at the project assessment table, I see only 512 GAs counted there. The list on the good content page totals 554 GAs. —Torchiest talkedits 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that it is listed as 542 in last quarter's issue and this quarter's issue shows 12 new GAs and 1 lost GA, I'd say it wasn't recalculated for this quarter. If we take the 542 figure as accurate then I'd guess the true value for this quarter should be 553. Of course this figure doesn't jive with the 512 listed in the assessment table (last updated on 3 July) or the 508 GAs (I only count 508 if we don't count the Good Topics, Good Article Nominees, and A-Class Articles) from the good content page (last updated on 11 July) so I'm curious about this as well. The difference between the assessment table value and the WP:VG/GC value may be partially due to the fact that VG/GC is calculated manually whereas the assessment table is handled by a bot, and partially due to the fact that the assessment table bot isn't always up to date, but I'm really not sure why the Newsletter value differs from both of them. It seems like it would be good to get all three figures into agreement if that's possible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The A-class and Good topic counts are correct. I wonder if the GA count has been distorted by articles that have been promoted to A-class in the project but still retain a GA rating elsewhere, or if the number wasn't manually decremented since it was another promotion instead of a demotion. The difference in the bot's table and the project list could be due to a similar problem: not every GA article was added to the list when promoted. I'd probably go by the bot's count, since it can be forced to update outside of it's normal schedule. —Torchiest talkedits 00:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes good sense to me, but I can't speak for the Newsletter by any means. I'm very new to helping here and there seems to be little in the way of guidance for newcomers currently. -Thibbs (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Userbox take 2

I'd like to return to this 2008 idea if I can. I think this is a very good idea not so much to promote the NL department (although that's nice too), but more to help out those of us who want to participate here but can't find anyone else who is still active or communicative in this department. By transcluding a WP:VG/NL userbox template the unstated presumption is that you'd be willing to help out a new participant to the department. So this would mainly be to help new participants track down NL creators. I've created a new draft of such a userbox in my sandbox here, and I'd like input on it if there is any available. There are also two versions that were presented as options in the original 2008 suggestion. I think we need to get better organized if this department is to continue to live up to its former promise. Please let me know what you guys think. -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Curious why nobody was weighing in I've done an analysis of who actually has participated actively here, whether any of them are still active, whether any of the active ones use userboxes, and finally when they actually participated here. This narrows the possible editors who might be interested in this userbox to 2 people, one of whom hasn't edited the newsletter since 2009... So basically I don't think this is going to be a big hit immediately. Nevertheless, I think it's a good thing to have to help editors new to the project to find others who are participants in the Newsletter process. So unless there are any objections I'm going to implement this in a few days. Let me know if anyone thinks this is not a good idea. -Thibbs (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There are only ~50 people watching this subpage, and almost 700 hundred watching the main talk page. Try posting this there to get more discussion and feedback. I personally think it's an okay idea, but it might also be good to just start a discussion asking who is interested in helping out in the first place. —Torchiest talkedits 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right that the WikiProject main page may be the best place to ask for new help here, but I guess the main reason I was hoping that some of the 50+ people watching this subpage would respond is that they would be the ones most likely to be able to help newcomers who are interested in getting involved. In the end that was more of a motivation for the proposal than just raising awareness of the newsletter because the general readership is already fairly decent but the number of old guard staffers here seems to be very small. But anyway it doesn't look like many of the most active participants in the newsletter's past are actively editing anymore so like I said the mentorship aspect of it may not really be that feasible anymore.
In addition to requesting help from the main page, some kind of a request for additional newsletter staffing may be a good idea for the Q3 newsletter, too, though. Considering that it's not been delivered yet, I've got a mock-up of a possible article that we could include here. What do you think? Would that fit the newsletter's style? It's not really written like a feature or an editorial, but more like a solicitation or plea. Would that be inappropriate? Is the title OK? Does it come off as too negative? I recognize that it may be a little fraught/overwrought, so please feel free to alter and delete parts as needed if it is salvageable. -Thibbs (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: I made a tiny tweak to some of the spelling/grammar, so here is the most up to date version. Again, feel free to rework or touch it up. -Thibbs (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're suggesting. It looks like though you do most of the work on the newsletter, MuZemike has helped with it before, and now GamerPro64 is working on it again as well. Why not just post a query (or link to your user space piece) on the main project page asking if anyone else is interested in participating? It seems easier than using a transcluded template that would add users to a category that others would have to know existed in order to look it up and find people they could question about helping with the newsletter. Consider: we've got about 250 people who are subscribed to the newsletter, but it's quite possible, in fact likely, I'd suggest, that a lot of the 700 people watching the project page don't even know about it. I personally only discovered it accidentally because I had watchlisted another editor's page and saw it get delivered there a few months ago. —Torchiest talkedits 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting; I didn't realize GamerPro64 was back. I should pay more attention to the main WP:VG talk I guess. That should help a lot since GamerPro64 has some experience with the newsletter. As far as my contributions here have been concerned, I just showed up a few quarters back and although I've been trying to help here, at this point all I've been doing is the gnomish stuff. I would potentially be interested in contributing to the other portions of the newsletter if I knew that nobody else was working on them, but it's been dead silent in here for a while so I don't really know what's going on and then when the deadline comes up there is nothing to go out except the bare facts (this will be the 3rd newsletter without a featured editor and possibly the second without a featured article). I'd be pretty stunned if I just happened to show up just as everyone else left en masse, but apart from a brief contact with GamerPro64 several quarters ago I haven't been able to contact any of the editors who used to produce the newsletter. Guyinblack is more or less retired these days, several of the others haven't edited in months (or at least haven't edited the newsletter in months), and I frankly haven't been able to elicit any response from MuZemike in quite a while.

So there are two options:

  1. One option is that some of the former newsletter editors can be dug up to give input on what works and what doesn't in their experience from having dealt with the newsletter before. Maybe there are conventions regarding content and tone that have not been made explicit. For new editors here at the newsletter it is kind of intimidating to just show up and suggest (or worse, implement) an article without any guidance whatsoever. Would an article about how great the Xbox is be appropriate? Would an article about how certain politicians should be voted out due to their stance on video games be appropriate? I mean I have personal opinions about what is appropriate here and what isn't, but I just arrived here very recently and so I really have no clue. I was hoping that by using the userbox template the experienced newsletter editors could sort of advertise themselves as people who are familiar with the workings of the newsletter and who could be contacted by new newsletter members in case there were any questions rather than leaving new contributors to make it up as they go along. Sure it would mean looking for template transclusions, but that's got to be better than talking into an empty talk page and then having to research which of the former members have retired and which are noncommunicative, etc., and ending up confusedly scratching your head.
  2. Then the other option is that we give up on the idea of any of the former contributors helping and we just remake the newsletter as we see fit. In that case, the userbox idea would just be to spread the word I guess. And this could also be accomplished by writing to the main WP:VG talk page of course, and possibly by posting the above "solicitation" to the current Q3 newsletter if that sounds like a good idea. I'm OK with this option since it seems like that's kind of what's happening anyway, but as I said the main reason I wanted the userbox was so that new editors interested in contributing to the newsletter could find experienced newsletter people to bounce ideas off or just to contact if they needed help.

So again, I'd be in favor of getting some of the more established newsletter people to offer their assistance if possible by considering using the proposed userbox template, but if none are available and willing then I think it makes sense to canvas WP:VG like you've suggested for a new group of editors to help build the newsletter. That way nobody will find themselves in the position of showing up to help and assuming that there is an established infrastructure here when in reality it's a ghost town, and then the newsletter goes out lacking all of its features. I hope that's clear. I am definitely a bit long-winded. :) -Thibbs (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Well there's been zero response to the userbox question at WT:VG (posted >10 days ago), but above Torchiest has said he's OK with the idea and I think it could be a good idea. So that means we have about 50% approval (if we count only GamerPro64 and MuZemike and forget about the 50+ page watchers). So I'll go ahead and create the userbox as it appears in my sandbox in the next few days unless there is objection from the others. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Q3 Newsletter piece

Since this thread was beginning to be taken up with a side-discussion regarding expanding the number of editors here, and since MuZemike has just suggested that he is interested in delaying delivery of the Q3 newsletter to await a possible feature article, I'm splitting out this sub-header to discuss the "plea" I had spoken about above. I've tweaked it some more to make it into more of an academic literature review which in my view makes it more of an article, but I'd like some review before it's accepted or rejected for the newsletter. The current version of it can be found here. If someone wouldn't mind reading it over and making copyedits (grammar and usage corrections) then please go for it. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also feel free to cut it down where needed because as I now notice, it is rather massively long compared to some of the other past features. And it was written in kind of a scatter shot manner so yeah, the more corrections the better. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I tightened up the intro some. I may take another crack at it later. —Torchiest talkedits 18:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know if there are any restrictions on or conventions related to its size too, but if need be I wonder if the original request for more editors (second half of what's in my sandbox) could be condensed a lot or even just removed entirely. I'm having sort of a revelation about how the Newsletter works based on all the discussions now ongoing at the main WT:VG talk page. I'd always assumed that this was the main place where Newsletter-related discussions took place but if they normally go on in main talk then it's most likely that my sense of nobody being around to help is fully off base and it only comes from the quietness here on this talk page. Now that GamerPro is back too there may be enough people to easily keep it running for all I know. -Thibbs (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to finish this discusion, Torchiest has kindly edited it into good shape now and as far as I'm concerned it's good to go. Feel free to extract it from my sandbox and put it into whatever holding cell it needs to be in whenever anyone has the time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

News in Brief section?

I was recently contacted by an editor who is holding a small competition where he has asked that participants improve one of a number of possible VG articles and then the winner receives a prize - in this case a video game. It does sound like newsletter-appropriate material and I was wondering where this would best fit into the newsletter given the format it takes. As I see it there are a few options:

  • One option would be to include a small section right on the front piece for the NL. So using the Q2 issue as an example, we could add a new subsection between "Content" and "Project Navigation" called "News in brief" or "Contests and Competitions" or something like that and then we could link in bullet form to competitions like this there and that section could be used to briefly highlight important RfCs, discussions of the rules or new consensuses formed.
  • Another option is to make a fifth link under "Content" which could be used to house the same details. This would have the disadvantage of being easier to miss among the other sections, and potentially very small some quarters, but perhaps it would fit the style of the newsletter better.
  • We could also just work to integrate items like this into the feature or even include them at the very end of the feature separated by horizontal rules.

I'm sure there are other options available too. Does anyone have any views on what might be the best way to handle this sort of material? -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the new section idea, and I think Sven's contest is fine to mention. The only concern I would have is that this could just be a one off thing, where we wouldn't necessarily have a consistent flow of these types of activities to mention. Maybe it would be better to just add a divided off note at the end of the feature, which is already more or less two features combined. —Torchiest talkedits 13:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll add it to the end of the feature then. Since we are so behind schedule for Q3, we can leave the idea of a brief news subsection for later issues. -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I ended up making it a full new subsection above the refs for the feature since it seemed strange to cram it in at the bottom below the refs. I think it works because as you said, Torchiest, the feature is really like 2 stuck together. The horizontal rule thing could be used in later issues if it works better. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Just had a sudden though: we might also consider putting a "Addenda, Clarifications, and Corrections" section under "News in Brief" if we need it. -Thibbs (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I realized after the fact that we already have this, which would have been the perfect place for Sven's offer, and should be a good place for corrections etc. —Torchiest talkedits 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Right you are. That's perfect really. Oh well we're learning on the job. :) -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Q4 2012

Since we are getting ready for the fourth quarter, might as well start a new section. So if anyone has ideas, place them right here. GamerPro64 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I thought might be interesting is to do a series on the various WP:VG Taskforces. Sort of an expansion on the 2010-Q1 feature by Guyinblack25. We could profile each taskforce or possibly we could do them in groups by similarities (e.g. Nintendo, Sega, and Atari task forces all in one issue, or Nintendo and Megaman task forces with WikiProject Pokémon or something) so comparisons could be drawn. I'd guess that the taskforces would be glad of the publicity and we might be able to get some help with the details from the page watchers there who would probably be the most hardcore members. Essentially it would be an interview like with a featured editor but instead this would be for a featured taskforce (or child project or other allied group). I have other ideas for features too, but at least this one gives us a large supply of material to fall back on if there's nothing in the pipeline one quarter.
Ideally we'd have backup articles ready to ship in case we find ourselves in another last-minute situation like this last quarter again, and also (looking to how they handle it at The Signpost) we should probably have a backup delivery system just so poor MuZemike isn't the only person responsible for the task every quarter.
Also I'd like to suggest that we get back to featuring editors. I think it was an important section of the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-For the Taskforce idea, I don't think they are as active as they were two-three years ago. But talking with our sister Wikiprojects sounds promising. The backup artcles makes sense if one idea falls through. And for a featured editor, I think I has ask Khanassassin if he's up for it. GamerPro64 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree on Khanassassin. He's been pretty active and he's a good choice for interview. -Thibbs (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just popping in that going back and revisiting some previous articles is probably a good idea. The task force environment, in particle, often changes, so for those who aren't following it closely it's a good opportunity. Btw, nice job on the last newsletter. Good to see it getting some love :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what to have as the quarter's Feature? GamerPro64 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting close to 2013. Anyone have any ideas for the new Feature? GamerPro64 07:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on a comparison of the different foreign language versions of WP:VG currently. There are 28 different WP:VGs so this will have to be just an overview, but I intend to highlight departments/taskforces/subsections that en.wikipedia doesn't use but that are either potentially useful to us or that several other WP:VGs use. And then I want to go into ways that we can use the departments that overlap to help en.wikipedia using examples from the April 2012 transclusion of the polish WP:VG/RS. Finally I want to make suggestions for the future and discuss ways that en.wiki WP:VG members can help. I'm still gathering the last little bit of info on the last 3 foreign language versions and then I'll start compiling the article. I do think I'll make it in time for the January 2 deadline, but it might be down to the wire. Is there a backup? Because even if two features are written then we could easily save one for next quarter. -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we have a backup this quarter. But seeing that you're making progress on this one it may not matter. GamerPro64 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
OK I've just finished the draft for this quarter. You can find it here. I left a note with Torchiest who had earlier offered to look it over for me prior to publishing, but since I got it out so last minute (it was due 50 minutes ago by my watch), he may not have time to do much copyediting. Anybody is welcome to take a swing at it. I personally think it's a bit too long (it certainly took more time than I'd initially anticipated and I'm quite sick of the finicky Google Translate). But if there's no time then I guess it would be ok to go to print as is. Again the newsletter is due some time today (the 2nd) but no harm if we're a few days late. It looks like MuZemike still has to draw up the December 2012 New article announcements too. -Thibbs (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I finished copy editing it, so it can be sent out whenever. —Torchiest talkedits 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
MuZemike hasn't edited in about ten days. I could ask another editor with access to EdwardsBot to deliver it that way, if others are agreeable. —Torchiest talkedits 20:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be OK with me. I do think we should try to make some effort to get the paper out closer to its stated deadline if we can. A few days overdue is no big deal but a week or more makes me uncomfortable. The December new article announcements section still hasn't been completed and MuZemike usually does that for us too, but perhaps it could be completed manually? Is anyone familiar with how MuZemike usually creates them? I'm guessing he has offline stuff to deal right now. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've gotten it all put together based on the way the previous newsletter was done, and I've got my friend sending it out hopefully in the very near future. —Torchiest talkedits 02:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks for the help, Torchiest. I hope MuZemike comes back soon! He's been a great help here for a long time. -Thibbs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Q1 2013

So while we wait for the new issue to be released, we might as well get ideas up for the next quarter. GamerPro64 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the interviewee? If not, there was a bit of a discussion on the topic back in August. -Thibbs (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at that table, I see that most of the people are the list are either completely inactive or haven't edited much recently. I see three editors from that list who seem like good candidates: MuZemike, SharkD, and Teancum. I'd also add Darkwarriorblake and JDC808 to that list, as both are pretty active and have sent articles to WP:FAC recently. —Torchiest talkedits 19:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of interviewing SharkD but seeing that his last edit was in November, I may save that for another time. Either asking Muzemike or Teancum would be fine, though leaning towards asking Muzemike. GamerPro64 15:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
MuZemike sounds like a great choice to me. —Torchiest talkedits 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed re. MuZemike. I think he's in semi-retirement mode right now so it would be good to catch him before he makes it a full retirement. SharkD is also a good suggestion but you're right he seems to have become inactive just like Guyinblack25... Teancum may be good for next quarter (or soon anyway) because he's also in semi-retirement mode and he's certainly done a lot for the project in the past. We have to catch these guys while they're still participating! -Thibbs (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't get MuZemike. Maybe we can try Teancum? GamerPro64 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, we still have a couple months. MuZemike has been mostly on a break lately, but he could return before the newsletter is due. But you could contact Teancum and let him know you want to interview him for either Q1 or Q2, depending. —Torchiest talkedits 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That sounds good. MuZemike seems to be kind of spotty in his editing these days so it may take a few weeks for him to notice your note, but it also might be a good idea to interview him when he shows up again if he indicates any interest in it. Just like having a backup feature article is nice, the same could be true for interviews of influential people like MuZemike. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You raise a good point, Torchiest. I'll contact Teancum with the added addition to Q1 & 2. Thibbs, that can work though I question when he will be active again. GamerPro64 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I asked Teancum and he's happy to oblige. GamerPro64 17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the feature, I still have the germ of an idea for an editorial concerning "Verifiability not Truth" as it relates to video games - potentially a bigger issue here than in media with more established critical/journalistic coverage. If anyone else wants to work on a feature simultaneously, though, that would be cool. In general I tend to prefer non-editorial material. -Thibbs (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I keep thinking I'd like to write a feature on the A-class process, but I haven't gotten organized enough to do it yet. But hey, maybe in the next two months I'll work something out. —Torchiest talkedits 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind this not being part of the next quarter but I thought for a feature we should talk about Featured Pictures. I've been seeing them happen more for this project and it sounds like an interesting topic to discuss. GamerPro64 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on the A-class editorial piece I mentioned above. It should be ready in plenty of time for the April issue. —Torchiest talkedits 07:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. If time allows I'll try to work on a backup one for the future as well. And GamerPro's suggestion about featured pictures sounds interesting for the future as well. -Thibbs (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So far, mine is a very editorial piece. I may need to get some feedback on it before all is said and done. —Torchiest talkedits 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I can try to look at it although it may be more copyediting than anything else if it's mostly opinion. But I can certainly give my view of the matter as well. Good work on being so timely, by the way. :) -Thibbs (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I suppose. It's more like I'm finally working on something for Q4 2012. ;) —Torchiest talkedits 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything, and I'm a bit busy this quarter, but I've recently been thinking of writing something editorial about best practices for handling list articles. I have a train ride coming up and I might be able to work on something then as a backup. I'd like to pair it with an op-ed counterpoint if possible and I have an editor or two in mind who might provide the contrary view but I haven't contacted anyone else about this yet so this may not be ready before Q2. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a good-sized first draft of my editorial about a month and a half ago. I'll give it another look and revision this weekend. I also don't have as much time for WP as I used to, but this is still part of my plans to get it done in the few weeks, in time for the newsletter. —Torchiest talkedits 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've got a (hopefully) final draft written up here. If you guys would like to take a look and offer advice or suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it. Specifically, is the tone okay? I'm a bit concerned about calling out a specific set of reviews. Let me know if I should get rid of the specific examples or anything else. Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 00:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't think the calling out of the reviews in question was too heavy-handed. You backed it up with a good explanation of what you were getting at and you named no names. I've just made a very minor clearing up of some typos, and I'll take a more thorough look tomorrow, but so far the tone seems ok for me. Good job with it! -Thibbs (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So we're nearly there now. There's just the new articles to complete and then I think it's ready to go out. The "deadline" is set for today so we'll be on track if we can finish by tonight. Does anyone know how MuZemike used to compile these lists? Did he have a tool for this? I assume there's more to it than just adding up the New article announcements, right? Because new article announcements is manually created but the Newsletter's "New Articles" subsection lists all newly-created articles that got tagged as part of the project, right? Has anyone but MuZemike ever done the new articles subsection? Any ideas how to get this part done? -Thibbs (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked him about that around the start of the new year, but I don't think he ever replied. I manually put together the list for December, which was a pain. Would not recommend it. I'm guessing there is some sort of script for it somewhere. Hopefully. —Tourchiest talkedits 06:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think he's partially retired or something. I've had a lot of difficulty getting in contact with him in the past myself. Is there a master list of all new articles or something? How did you do it for December? If the only way to do it is manually for now then I'd be willing to make a start at it. Also, are we going to use EdwardsBot for delivery again this quarter? -Thibbs (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the new articles are here. It's currently backlogged through the previous three months, since MuZemike was the only one doing it and I only attempted it that one time. I just copy/pasted and then formatted to match the style of previous months. Compare the histories of December and November. —Torchiest talkedits 17:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK I think I got it then. Does it look properly done? If so let's publish! -Thibbs (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope you found an easier way to do it than I did; if not, you have my sympathy. I've gotten all the subpages set up and asked my EdwardsBot friend to help us again, so it should be out within the next half day. —Torchiest talkedits 03:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh it wasn't that bad. I used a few very simple scripts to format it. The most time-consuming part was reformatting the dates. Thanks for taking care of the delivery, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Q2 2013

Okay, does anyone have plans for the interview and feature for the next issue? I don't have any major idea yet for a feature, so Thibbs if you want to take another go at it, that would be fine with me. As for the interview, SharkD was around a little in February and March, so could be available this time. —Torchiest talkedits 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea for a feature on Featured Pictures. If anyone wants to take care of the interview its fine by me. GamerPro64 23:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I do have an idea in mind as well, but I'll gladly defer to GamerPro64 for this quarter. Ideally I'd write it in parallel as a backup. We'll see... :) -Thibbs (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Just checking in to see how things are progressing. We've got a little more than a month to go now. I can put together the interview questions, but are you guys both working on features? —Torchiest talkedits 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I'm going to get started on writing my feature soon. GamerPro64 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And I should note that I haven't yet moved beyond the outline for my proposed in-parallel article. But I have a train ride tomorrow so I may start in on it if I'm feeling ambitious. -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Are we still on track to get this out by July 3rd? Are you looking pretty good with the feature, GamerPro64? And did we ever discuss who was going to handle the interview or who will be the interviewee? -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes I got the feature almost done. And, I don't think we got someone to interview this quarter. GamerPro64 02:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. I never got a reply from SharkD, and didn't have another interview candidate in mind. —Tourchiest talkedits 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Sounds good, GamerPro64. Tourchiest, were you still interested in performing the interview, though, if we find another candidate? If not, I could take a crack at it. It would be good to give GamerPro64 a break since he performed the last two and is doing our feature. As far as possibilities, looking back through the discussions and comparing against current levels of editor activity, I'm thinking Darkwarriorblake and JDC808 potentially look like good candidates. Any other ideas for good interviewee candidates? -Thibbs (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh yeah, I'll see if I can get JDC808 to do the whole thing this weekend. —Torchiest talkedits 13:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Great. And does anyone know of any news items? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that User:Samwalton9 is gearing up to make a big effort at WP:VG/R. He has just gone through the entire backlog and cut a large number of entries that were unlikely to ever be notable enough and now he wants to start tacking the notable topics remaining do drive the backlog down even more. He just came up with this idea recently, but if he starts to generate interest on WT:VG, maybe we could put a note about the effort in the newsletter. Any thoughts on that and any other news items? -Thibbs (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to put that in, that we hit 10% C, and say we started 50% Start? More news... Maybe the fact we passed 400 members? Or do you want to wait for 500? That didn't count the inactive people. Just trying to help... Darrman (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good thought on the number of members, Darrman, but we actually passed 400 last quarter (on the very last day of last quarter to be exact). We could still mention it as an omission from last quarter, though. Or we could just wait till 500. Anyone have any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK well either way I added the 3 suggestions so far to the draft for now. No problem if anyone wants to remove them as not sufficiently newsworthy, though. -Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Interview is completed, fyi. —Torchiest talkedits 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks great, Torchiest. And good work on the Feature so far, GamerPro64. The topic is an interesting one. If you'd like I can copyedit for grammar later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure. A copyedit might be something I need for the feature anyhow. GamerPro64 14:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • OK I just did a quick copyedit. Check it over to make sure I didn't change the meaning of any of your sentences, though. And feel free to re-adjust it as needed. -Thibbs (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Looked it over and I think that you improved whatever I was saying. Kind of surprised me that I was missing words in some of the sentences. GamerPro64 01:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Great, so we still have a redlink for the June 2013 New article announcements, but I've done a rough count and I think that number is accurate. So apart from that, I think we're all set for distribution sometime tomorrow (the 3rd) then. Good work everyone! -Thibbs (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I got the redlink taken care of. Who do we contact to get the newsletter delivered? -Thibbs (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I set up the newsletter's subpages and posted a note on MuZemike's talk page asking him to distribute it. He's been around recently so he may be able to take care of it. If we don't hear anything by this weekend, I know someone else I can ask. —Torchiest talkedits 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Q3 2013

Might as well open a new thread for the next quarter. GamerPro64 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Since MuZemike has been around again, I can ask him about doing the interview for this quarter. No ideas on a feature, but Thibbs said he had something in the works for the last issue, so that could be used this time around. —Torchiest talkedits 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I started a bit of an outline for an article on our list articles. I don't want to give spoilers yet, but I was thinking about perhaps getting a few editors I've worked with in the past (including some non-WP:VG people) to provide some comments/views/quotations since some of them hold very different ideas than I do about how lists should be handled. Since I want outside views I'll have to get this done earlier than normal so I'll try to get on it. -Thibbs (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Having MuZe finally get interviewed would be great. Would like to see that since he was sort of an inspiration for me. As for the Feature Thibbs, hopefully you can get outside views. Last time it was attempted some said that they wouldn't do it because they weren't experienced with the project. Lost in translation really. GamerPro64 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything on the feature and interview? GamerPro64 17:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got the feature in progress. I'll probably get it into userspace pretty soon so I can better explain to the third party what I'm after in terms of their contributions. I'm trying to plan around the probability that not everyone I contact will be able to add their 2 bits. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
OK I've uploaded a first draft at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7. I've asked for input from 5 other users so hopefully we'll be able to get some external views. If any of you want to copy-edit or make suggestions then please feel free. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we have anyone in mind to interview or are we not doing one this quarter? GamerPro64 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like MuZemike isn't editing very regularly right now so we may not catch him in time... I reviewed some of the suggestions from before and sadly I see a lot of retired and semiretired editors... Some (like Guyinblack25) do edit a few times a year, but it would take a campaign to catch them for an interview. The only previously mentioned editor that is currently active is Darkwarriorblake. I'd drawn up a personal chart of the most active contributors to the various sub-areas of WP:VG back in Q2-2012 with weight given to breadth of involvement in the project as a whole. That was the basis for my earlier list of future interviewees (including Guyinblack, Jacoplane, MrKIA11, MuZemike, etc.). It may be time for me to redo the chart based on newer data, but looking back at it I can offer another good crop of suggestions. Any of the following would be good interview candidates in my opinion:
So that gives us another 3 possibilities in addition to Darkwarriorblake. Like the first list, this is just an algorithmic edit-based suggestion so not everyone may be perfect for an interview, but of those who are currently listed as active I can certainly vouch for the suitability of X201 and Salvidrim. Any other thoughts on these possibilities? And who is going to do the interview? I definitely think we should do one this quarter. There are just too many good editors who should be acknowledged before they retire. -Thibbs (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Anybody thinking about handling the interview? I've never done one myself, and I don't want to leave too big a thumb print on any one quarter, but I could give it a whirl if nobody else is interested. We should act quickly if this is going to happen, though, since as far as I know we don't even have anybody lined up yet.
Another thing I was thinking about recently is that we should include the "In the News" section of the Main Page to our consideration for our own "On the Main Page" section. Right now there are two articles on GTAV and I can see that we've missed game-related stories for Q1 (a February article on Pyongyang Racer) and Q2 (an April article on the shutdown of LucasArts). Since these are listed on the Main Page, it seems natural that we should mention them here too. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in adding news that we missed in the next issue. GamerPro64 14:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
OK I've added a section on the "In the news" section and noted our omissions of the previous quarters' news items. So all that remains now is (1) the feature (I'm still awaiting the contributions of 1 editor who said he might be able to help me. And I'll be able to finish any other incomplete parts myself by the deadline.), (2) the interview, and (3) the September close-outs (DYKs, NAAs, and changes to FA/GA content). Apart from the interview I think we're on track. -Thibbs (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I've contacted Salvidrim to do the interview and he's agreed. I'll post the questions in a moment. Sorry to forge ahead like this without input, but I was getting concerned that we'd miss the interview otherwise. -Thibbs (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. Sorry I haven't been around the 'pedia much in the last week or so. I'll copy edit the interview once all the questions are answered, if you'd like. I can also put the newsletter together when everything is ready, since I've done it a few times now. —Torchiest talkedits 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    No worries. Yeah, please copy edit the interview if you like - Salvidrim just told me he's done - and you could take a look at the feature in my sandbox too if you have time. I'm waiting on one last person, but if he doesn't make it then I'll come up with something by midnight (my time) October 2. And thanks for offering to put it all together at the end too. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, everything is ready to go. I posted a message at MuZemike's talk page asking him to send it. If there's no reply by tonight, I'll ask my other friend again. So it should be out sometime today. —Torchiest talkedits 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Q4 2013

Now that the Q3 newsletter went out (twice!), we can turn our attention to Q4. I'll definitely be able to get everything together at the end of the year, as I'll have a lot of time off, but I'm not quite sure what else I'm up for at this point. Anyone else have any ideas or plans yet? —Torchiest talkedits 03:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have anything in mind for future features, but just to throw an idea out there: we might be able to do something on the project's sex and gender ratios. I know there's a fair bit of reliable literature out there on the topic of the lack of female Wikipedians, and just based on gamer demographic statistics I'd imagine the situation is even more dire at WP:VG. Not really sure how we'd dig up any statistics on female WP:VGers, though... I'm not even certain I know any since user names don't always give any clues about sex or gender. Yesterday I went through all the FAAs (going back to the first one compiled in mid-2006) in order to look for another metric by which to determine suitability for featured editor. In looking at these, I believe the most active female article creator we have is JenniBees. She's tied with User:Mairebleu whose username makes me think this editor may be female as well. It might be helpful to talk with them about the issue but other than them I'd really just be guessing as to sex and gender. Relatedly, I think I've run into gay editors here on WP:VG before but I couldn't name any off the top of my head. Again it would potentially be helpful to discuss and talk with some of them too. This is really just the seed of an idea for feature topic at this point. I don't know how easy it would be to cover properly, but does anyone here know any female or gay editors involved in any capacity with WP:VG? -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant it would be to even discuss LGBT membership. It's entirely irrelevant. We shouldn't have to care. I'm not straight and it has no impact whatsoever on... well, anything! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess my idea centers on the view that a diversity of perspectives/viewpoints is healthy to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. I don't think any goodfaith editor would reject an idea merely because it conflicts with the editor's personal beliefs, and of course the rules that are currently in place would bar that kind of behavior anyway, but I do think that a degree of systemic bias exists when the editor pool lacks diversity because some topics simply don't arise with any regularity. From what I've read, both Wikipedia and video games in general have a minority of female participants and together these would have a multiplicative effect here. My gut feeling is that the same is probably true for the LGBT presence at WP:VG. Presenting the voice of minority editors might raise awareness of these issues and might give insight onto what aspects of the current process work well and what parts don't. It's a tricky issue perhaps, and if it were tackled it would have to be done with sensitivity. I'd have no objections to shelving it for now either, though.
Another topic that is kind of related is that of expert editors. This was touched on in the interview with Wgungfu (Q4-2011) but perhaps it could be turned into a feature. I think I read somewhere that Indrian had some video game industry experience, and I know Frecklefoot has too. Maybe if we found a few "expert editors" (e.g. from here) we could do a feature on that. There's an interesting dynamic involved for experts contributing to an encyclopedia whose rules are set up for non-experts. Anyway I'm just throwing ideas out there really. Can anybody else think of a good feature topic? -Thibbs (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
DarthBotto is also involved somewhat in the indie industry.1 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

New possible idea for a feature: WP:VG beta tests FLOW. Per this thread and Wikipedia:FLOW#Roadmap. Anybody interested in this and think it would work as a feature? -Thibbs (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Although since it starts towards the end of Q4, the timing may not be the best... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean the newsletter feature should have come before it was implemented? That would have been ideal maybe, but I could still imagine an article covering the topic generally and then covering initial reactions/impressions. I guess it kind of depends when in December it is set for. December 1 would be less desirable for a newsletter feature. December 20 might be fine, though. -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on Features or Interviewees yet? GamerPro64 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I have a hectic schedule for the next several weeks. I really can't commit to anything except coming up with ideas. For a feature it might be good to cover FLOW if indeed WP:VG is going to be in the first wave to test it. For interviewee I'd suggest X201 or CyberSkull since they have done a lot and are currently active. I'll help out if I can. And I'm pretty sure I'll have considerably more free time for next quarter. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. And if that doesn't go through, the FLOW thing I mean, we can probably do like a year in review. A sort of big things that happened in the project this year or something. GamerPro64 23:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Photoshop eh?—CKY2250 ταικ 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it might be nice to give a shout-out to User:Evan-Amos this quarter too. Kind of nice to see some visibility for the project via third parties. -Thibbs (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So how are we on Features and Interviews? GamerPro64 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd completely choked with offline work until the end half of the month. Though I'm discovering to my dismay that I have more difficulty staying away from this site than I thought I'd have... Can these be warning signs? Anyway I'll do what I can in the last few days but I can't in good faith commit to anything this quarter. -Thibbs (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to ask the main talk page to see if anyones interested in doing some writing for anything in the newsletter. GamerPro64 18:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since its almost the end of the year and we don't seem to have anything for feature, I could possibly write up something like a year in review or something. GamerPro64 02:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, go for it. I can help put it all together whenever you guys are ready with all the pieces. I might be able to write something for the upcoming quarter this time around though. —Torchiest talkedits 18:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We're 3 days overdue now. Is a feature in the process of being written or should we just send it out minus the feature this quarter (like we did for Y5Q2? I assume there won't be an interview this quarter, right? I think everything else is good to go, though. Sorry again that I've been unavailable this quarter. Like Torchiest I plan to be more involved with the next quarter. It's the WP:VG anniversary so I think we should do all kinds of retrospective stuff and do something special with it. Maybe more than one feature or something? I don't know. I'll think about it more later. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I say we should just send it out sans feature and interview. At this point we'll still have it in within the week it was due. We can pull it together next quarter. -Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Might as well. This isn't the first time we failed to get a feature and interview ready. GamerPro64 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will get it finalized when I get home this evening. —Torchiest talkedits 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Q1 2014

New year means new thread for the next newsletter. Let's see what's in store this time around. GamerPro64 03:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a new contributor here at the newsletter discussions, but I have been reading them (both the newsletters and the discussions) for a few months now (and enjoying them). I'd just like to tell you three of the people who I think would be good to interview. I believe X201, CyberSkull (both suggested above already) and CR4ZE (particularly for his phenomenal work on the Grand Theft Auto V and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim articles) are great candidates to interview. I realise there's still a few months until the newsletter's release, but I thought I'd suggest this anyway, before I forget. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 08:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. It's always helpful to hear from the readership. We'll definitely have a featured editor this quarter and those all look like good candidates. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
So I have an idea for a feature which is centered around the Menacer article. It being almost merged into the Sega Genesis page and then suddenly becoming an article that can stand on its own, and possibly become a Good Article, can be seen as a testament on putting enough effort and gathering the right resources can make such an accomplishment. GamerPro64 17:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, GP64! I'm working on either a multi-person retrospective interview or a second feature to mark the 10th anniversary of WP:VG (which is actually today, by the way). But since this is the 10 year anniversary edition I think we should do a little bit more than previous newsletters. So multiple feature articles would be awesome. The more content this quarter the better! -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea that isn't exactly a feature, but more like a report. I'm not sure how in-depth I would get, but I was thinking it might be nice to do a breakdown of our featured articles (and possibly with good articles, although that could be way too much work) showing what types of topics they are about (e.g. video games themselves vs companies, individuals, etc), and then, for video game articles, doing a genre breakdown, so we could see maybe if some genres are underrepresented. Seems like a good fit for the ten year anniversary issue. —Torchiest talkedits 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess we already have something like that on the main page, so I could focus on the genre breakdown for game articles and do both good and featured I think. —Torchiest talkedits 14:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The list on the main Project page is pretty unorganized and lacks any graphical elements which help to show the statistics you suggested. I would love to see a bar graph/pie chart which shows how our project prioritizes types of video game-related articles. Do we have a lot of articles about consoles which are high quality? What about certain companies or task forces who have high-quality content at higher percentages than most? I definitely think you could make some interesting content on this. If you need someone to make any charts (Pie charts in most Newsletters/Signpost articles on Wikipedia are pretty bad), I'm your guy! --Nicereddy (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I like this idea. It kind of reminds me of SharkD's excellent graph-filled statistics feature from the newsletter's second year. I believe he kept running updates on those graphs for quite a while. I'm curious if those are still maintained. Wish I had time to do some digging just now. But yeah that would be excellent, Torchiest and Nicereddy. -Thibbs (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So I'm holding off the Menacer article until more develops on it. But until then I have plans to have User:Red Phoenix be this quarters Featured Editor if he's interested. GamerPro64 04:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I might be able to help you with that Menacer feature if you change your mind. I stood pretty steady on the pro-merge side until czar proved me wrong about how much coverage it actually received. I'm very proud of what he's done with the article now; it's also the final piece when he decides to send it to GA nominations before a Sega Genesis featured topic nomination is ready (List of Sega Genesis games was promoted to FL yesterday and Sega 32X looks close to becoming a featured article at its FAC). Red Phoenix let's talk... 19:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I just put Menacer up for GAN—other than a single magazine, I think it's as complete as it ever could be czar ♔ 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely astounding, czar. You make it look so easy. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So the quarters almost done with. We have the interview done and it seems like a pretty decent quarter for content. How's the Feature? GamerPro64 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    I have been working on making the genre-breakdown list on and off this weekend. I will try to get a mostly finished draft of it up in the next week, and then ask for comments (and possibly graphs!) from you guys. —Torchiest talkedits 23:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    The first part, for FAs, is basically done and is located here. I will do the same basic thing for GAs, and that's partially completed. I plan on splitting the detailed lists off to subpages and keeping the prose and just the article counts on the main feature page. I had to make some compromises with genres, just because I didn't want to have fifty different categories, but if anyone thinks there are any games that are terribly miscategorized, feel free to either fix them or bring it up here for discussion. Or let me know if maybe some subcategories could be added. I will post the GA list in a few days. —Torchiest talkedits 01:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I've been quite busy on my end, but I still do intend to do a retrospective piece (there are a few old-time members that I 'm hoping to get a few words from) and I'll pick up speed on that in the next few days. -Thibbs (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I'm plowing through the GA list today. Hopefully it will be done before I go to bed tonight. —Torchiest talkedits 15:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    April's almost here so we need to get everything ready for the publishing. GamerPro64 15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Point well taken. It's due on the 2nd to be precise, but that soon coming due. I'm awaiting responses to several emails at this point for some of the older members, but some of them I emailed about a month ago and haven't heard word so I doubt we'll get anything from them. I found one reply email in my spam folder actually... Wonderful. But I've got that taken care of now and I'm just waiting on a few more recently contacted editors to see if I can get more responses. It's sad to see some of our most active members having retired a year or two or three ago. Anyway I'll get some work done on other parts of the newsletter probably tonight. This has been quite a hectic month for me. -Thibbs (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    I'm about 80% done with the GA list. I keep getting sidetracked with interesting reading and little fixes everywhere. :) —Torchiest talkedits 01:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, it's finished. If anyone wants to take a look at the prose and add anything, that's cool. Otherwise, I'll add it to the draft page later this weekend. I'm going to move the big lists to subpages. I had to make a lot of judgement calls on multi-genre games to avoid a massively fragmented list of a million subgenres and such. If anyone wants to move games to other genres and adjust the counts, that's fine also. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 03:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Torchiest: This is really interesting! Unsurprisingly, we're heavily lacking in quality articles in the "Sports" genre. I'm interested in what else we can learn from this. Fantastic job, --Nicereddy (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    I've got the interview basically finished now. I was hoping there'd be a few more responses over the weekend since I contacted a few more editors who had joined the project in the second year, but no luck. I'll take care of the March New Article Announcements tomorrow and then I think it'll be basically ready to go. Should we write a quick announcement blurb about the fact that we're marking WP:VG's 10th anniversary? -Thibbs (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    OK. I've imported Torchiest's article and the interview thing I was working on now. And I wrote the blurb in the announcements. Were we going to run GP64's Menacer article in this issue as well? The more the merrier I say, but if it's being saved for a later issue that's cool too. So other than that, though, and possibly more announcements that I haven't thought of I think the issue looks ready to ship. Anyone else want to confirm this? -Thibbs (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    Nah man. We're gonna have the Menacer article for next issue. Especially since I want to see how its FAC goes. GamerPro64 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    Should be good. I'm putting it all together, but might do a little more work on my piece before it's all done. But I am now able to send the newsletter myself, which I'll do hopefully within the next twelve hours. —Torchiest talkedits 02:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's away! —Torchiest talkedits 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Q2 2014

Okay, I think we're in somewhat good shape for the upcoming quarter, since we've got the Menacer article already in progress. I may have something for an article for Q3. The little report gave me an idea about the difficulties of sourcing really old games. Any thoughts on an interview subject? —Torchiest talkedits 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue on an interviewee. Since I got my eyes focused on the Menacer this quarter, I'll let someone else take the helm on getting a subject to spill their guts. GamerPro64 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds really interesting, Torchiest. I'd been toying with a similar topic several quarters ago - specifically related to the problem of sources that conflict (something that comes up more commonly for old and obscure topics). As far as interviewees, I'd again recommend X201 or CyberSkull. I think they're both still active. I can handle the interview if nobody else wants to do it. -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, be sure to add CR4ZE to that list of potential interviewees; he's worked for so long on articles such as Grand Theft Auto V and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, he really deserves the recognition. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What kind of "difficulties of sourcing really old games" are you talking about? BcRIPster (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty in actually finding sources. If you want to work on, say, the newest Call of Duty, you just google it and get everything you need. With games that came out before the Internet, or especially games from the 1980s, you can't really do that. You have to go find actual print magazines and such to source them, unless you get lucky and someone has scanned in the text somewhere. —Torchiest talkedits 12:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how we always have deadline issues here and I'm hoping that we can alleviate some of that pretty simply by using the queue system that the DYKs use. Especially for interviews this should be very easily accomplished. Ideally we can generate a number of spare features to queue up and run at our convenience as well, but I know they're harder to crank out so we'll play it by ear and see how it goes. Anyway I've just contacted CR4ZE, CyberSkull, and X201 for interviews since we've been talking about them for a few quarters now. I figured we'd go alphabetically for now so we could run CR4ZE's interview this quarter, CyberSkull's next quarter and X201's for Q4. That is assuming that they all say yes. This will give us some buffer room so we don't have any quarters without a featured editor. I figured I'd interview CR4ZE myself (if he says yes) since I signed up for the interview this quarter, and I'd be happy to interview the other two as well unless anybody else wants to give it a shot. How is the feature looking? Are we on track for the Wednesday publication? -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I honestly did not have motivation to write up the feature. I guess the newsletter will run without out this quarter. GamerPro64 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • OK. we'll try again next quarter then. I guess Torchiest has an idea for an upcoming feature and I thought it might be interesting to run something on the topic of prolific editing. Kind of a fuzzy topic, but I was interested to note a few months ago when I ran through the numbers that there are some WP:VG members who have created over 100 articles and that the #1 most prolific article creator we have has created more than double the number of articles as the #2 most prolific. There is drama surrounding the cast of characters since the #3 most prolific has actually been indef blocked after getting into a very personal disagreement with the #1, and when we look at the top 10% we see several formerly featured editors as well as several problem-prone editors. This may be ready by Q4, but it's tricky since I'd really like to talk to the #1 most prolific and he's currently retired (this is about his fifth time "retiring" so I have hopes that he will be back before long). Anyway the interview is done and I'll get to work on the draft a bit today. With a bit of a push I think we can get this published by tomorrow. -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK I've just gone through a bunch of updates and I wanted to note here that this is the first time I've encountered Draftspace material in the New Article Announcements. I didn't know what to do about them really, but I ended up just removing them from the NAA charts since I reckon they aren't articles since they aren't in mainspace... I think that makes the most sense. So anyway apart from the feature article I think it's done now. So if we are running sans feature this quarter then I think we're all set to go. Anything I've missed? If not, then @Torchiest:, would you do the honors tomorrow? -Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll get it assembled and sent out Wednesday. —Torchiest talkedits 19:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ack, it will definitely be out in the next six hours. Promise this time. —Torchiest talkedits 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion in articles

You know how in The Signpost, every article has that discussion section on the bottom, that's really just the article talk page transcluded with some fancy templates? Well, I've gone ahead and made one for the VG Newsletter, if you want- you just stick <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Template:VG-Newsletter-comments}}</noinclude> at the bottom of the article, and a discussion section appears! See it in action at the bottom of my (rough) rough draft of my forthcoming feature at User:PresN/newsletter. Works on any page with a talk page. --PresN 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. It definitely makes sense for a feature article. Possibly even a featured editor interview. I guess there'd be little need for one on the other sections of the paper. -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool! I've wanted to do that for a while, but hadn't figured it out yet. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter/Archive_2&oldid=1140243671"