Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removals

[edit]

copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games Since the Workshop talk page is still blank, I assume we should keep discussion here about things. Any thoughts on the removal of these:

  • Assassin's Creed: C-class and in not too good of shape, but it is mid-importance.
  • Fiscal year: Start-class, mid-importance, but seems more like a business topic. Just because video game companies use something doesn't automatically make it under our umbrella. (I'm probably going to remove our template from the talk page.)
  • Lucky Star (manga): B-class, low-importance, and only a few short sections of some video game adaptations.
  • Medieval II: Total War: B-class, mid-importance, not comprehensive, and reads somewhat like a game guide. (I'm probably going to rerate it c-class.)
  • Pokémon game mechanics: C-class, low-importance, and not really needed to understand the main subject.
  • Rome: Total War: B-class, mid-importance, not comprehensive, and reads somewhat like a game guide. (Same as Medieval II.)
  • Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords: B-Class, low-importance, short, not comprehensive, and in need of much work. (Same as Medieval II.)

(Guyinblack25 talk 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Assassin's Creed is better than I was expecting from your description. I think it could be fixed up if someone is interested. Pagrashtak 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd quite like to see at least one Total War title representing the series on this DVD release, as although it hasn't broken the US market very well, its a high profile strategy series on the international market. (Americans don't relate to medieval and ancient Europe as well as Europeans do.) But if none of them are up to scratch and are unlikely to reach that standard anytime soon, we'll just have to do without. I'll put the series on my long term to-do list, but I'm a tad busy with other articles in my scope to give them the attention needed for the release at the present time. -- Sabre (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these articles have been on my to-do list for some time now too, Including Assassin's Creed and Lara Croft. I've got some good sources for them ready to go, I just need the time to read and write the darn things. I'm not opposed to keeping Assassin's Creed on the list, but if no one is going to work on it then I think we have better articles we could include instead. I'll wait a while before doing anything to see if anyone can work on them. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
We can let it sit there for a while before we remove it just in case. If you have ideas for articles to include, please let us know. Pagrashtak 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Brood War. Its GA, and I can't understand what logic whoever came up with the list was working by when they included StarCraft, StarCraft Ghost and StarCraft II, but not Brood War, especially when Brood War is released and liable to be more stable than Ghost and StarCraft II are in the long term. Could probably include StarCraft series (GA) as well, but I'm more concerned with the hole that Brood War's omission leaves in the middle of the series' coverage in this release. -- Sabre (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say SC II should be removed since it's unreleased, Ghost might be able to stay as an example of vaporware, but I'd prefer the series article over all of them. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd remove IGN, it's Start-Class, and the bulleted list is longer than the rest of the article. Pagrashtak 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If we're going to add in articles to replace some of the weaker quality ones I'd suggest things like Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express, Crazy Taxi (series), and Alleyway. The first two are low-importance but were on the main page, and Alleyway is mid-importance. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
We should trawl through all the start class articles and decide if they're worth keeping; the B class ones, too, if we have time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; Brood War should definitely be in there at the very least. Gary King (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think we should cut the extraneous crap, then see what we can add afterwards. I like shorter lists :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah shorter is good, then we can be more focused on the more important articles. And on that note, I think we should bring video game to FA status! Gary King (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video game is a boring article to feature though! Also, I know that it's been suggested that we focus on removing titles before adding any, but Nintendogs totally should be on. More than 18 million copies sold and it's still selling very well year-to-year. It's the best-selling game of this generation, <1 million away from being the best-selling game of the last two generations, and three million away from being the best-selling game of the past three generations. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reluctantly!) agree on Nintendogs. Giggy (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic Adventure would be a good candidate to remove at this point. I'm not quite sure who rated it B or Mid priority, but I re-assessed it at Start/Low. There's just not an actual article there so much as a collection of character bios.
  • Doom II: Hell on Earth as well got re-rated Start and probably should be removed. The article wasn't B-class (there are no references, no development, etc). I'm tempted to suggest merging it with classic Doom in a smaller sequel context but it would seem it had been revived once already so that might be tricky.
  • Duke Nukem 3D - Re-rated start, no reception, development, or structure.
  • Mortal Kombat (video game) - Re-rated start for same reasons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Organization XIII...I have to say I think it *should* be included since the main list is as a supplement, since it does give information all around and the subject does have some notoriety. There are a lot of other articles that aren't anywhere near that merit on that list which we should give the boot to more readily first, such as the re-rated ones above--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggested removal because I think I'm going to have my hands full getting other articles ready. I've only gone through 4 of the 9 others on the list which are mine, and I'd rather focus on more important articles once my FAs are done. Plus I think the amount of information it adds to Characters of Kingdom Hearts is minimal. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Mortal Kombat is a disambiguation page, uh-oh. Presumably this is supposed to be Mortal Kombat (series), needs correcting. Someoneanother 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start-class articles

[edit]

Of the start-class quality articles, which should stay and which should not? Some of them are of high-importance, but their quality doesn't make them especially informative. It seems most everyone is in agreement with removing Fiscal year and IGN. What about E3, Mark Hamil, and Flight simulator? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Removing Mark Hamil seems like a good idea, given the shape of the article (though in that same breath I do think involving his article in the wikiproject is a good idea, given his voice acting career). Flight simulator and E3 would be good ideas to axe as well: neither are very good and really need an overhaul.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'd be for removing all start-class articles form 0.7, as by definition none of them provide the reader with much detail. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should try to improve them to C-Class first I think. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, some of the notable Start class articles that should be improved are Capcom, Super Mario Bros. 3, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, and Game Boy Color. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the removal of all start-class articles and that they should be worked on to be improved for C-class. To be honest I'd go further and say C-class should also be excluded and the GA or higher articles pushed for inclusion, but that's another topic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I tossed up a proposal to combine Game Boy and Game Boy Color together, as one can be worked into the other with little apparent complication.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to just toss them all out, but if none of them don't make the grade then I don't see much choice. I think we'll have our hands full just getting the FAs and GAs ready. Should we drop another note on WT:VG asking for more help? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Aye. I agree with the top-down approach, let's get the proper page revisions for all our high-quality articles first. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get rid of all Start-class. For a minor article, sure, but for something as important as SMB3, I think we need to include it, even if it's not in the best shape. For FAs, I'd suggest reaching out to active task forces and the principal authors. I had been holding off on that, but I think we're at the stage that we need to start. Let's keep a list of such contacts made. Pagrashtak 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, more articles have been re-rated as Start-Class—if you think any more should be removed from 0.7, speak up. Pagrashtak 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if it's C or Start-class, I'd say axe it if it doesn't have much historical value. We're still going through the B-class articles and I'm sure more will get lower ratings. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sega 32X doesn't seem like a good priority, it was a short-lived blip on the backside of the Mega Drive. Seeing as it's only Start-class as well.. Someoneanother 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There's maybe 20 more B-class articles to check, but it's time to get this section done. Hopefully we can knock this out quickly and go on to the C and B-class articles. I suggest we compile a master list of articles (see below for a listing of the start-class articles that have already been requested for removal) that we want removed, and submit that to Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7 for the sake of simplicity. To keep things organized, let's keep discussion up in this section and add/remove from the final listing as the discussion progresses. Are there any issues with the list? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Any objects to removing these?
Most of these are in bad shape and don't really further the understanding of most of the other articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Seem like good ones to remove to me. What about Yoda, now that the template is cut?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, will add it to the final list along with Sega 32X. Any others out of the Start-class? Maybe E3? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No objections to any of those being removed, I'll take another look at the remainder when I get a minute. Someoneanother 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to removing these?
I think that should do it for start-class articles. On to C-class articles? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Start-class final listing

[edit]

C-class articles

[edit]

The start section looks to be almost done, so let's get this going too. Any objects to removing these?

Most of these are in bad shape and don't really further the understanding of most of the other articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

C-class final listing

[edit]

Additions

[edit]

To keep things somewhat organized, let's have talk of additions separate from the removals. A few things to keep in mind- Weeding out the weaker articles is a priority; keeping out a bad article is better than cramming in a lot of good articles. Look at the importance rating as well as the quality rating; a low-importance FA does not have to be included unless it completes a topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've no problem with either of those being added. The court case is a definite. -- Sabre (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda to bump, but it would be best to start actively discussing which to add now no? I mean more than we have been (I kinda want to suggest Alleyway, Necrid and possibly Ivy (Soulcalibur) if I can get it there enough, though none are really high importance...)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common problems

[edit]

If you've noticed some common/recurring problem with some articles, list it here so others can be aware of them too.

Duplicate listings

[edit]

Every time I think I've got this figured out, I learn something new. Here's what I'm up to so far—SelectionBot looks at quality (e.g. FA-Class, B-Class) and importance (e.g. Top, Low) among other criteria to pick articles. The fun part comes when an article falls under two (or more) projects, as SelectionBot considers both. Often, the "big" articles will trigger on both accounts. For example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is rated (FA-Top) for VG and (FA-Top) for Zelda. Thus, you'll see it listed under both User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3#Video game and User:SelectionBot/0.7/T-2#The Legend of Zelda. The rating of (FA-???) for Advernture games is enough for inclusion in User:SelectionBot/0.7/A-1#Adventure game. SelectionBot also picked up WikiProject Nintendo banners before they were removed, so you'll find OOT at User:SelectionBot/0.7/N-2#Nintendo also. So this article was picked four times over, and has four listings. A little annoying, but not too big a deal. Walkerma of the WP1.0 team says to cross-post oldids for now, to prevent the other project from selecting oldids if we have already done so. Now, here come the even better part—Animal Crossing is rated (Start-Mid) for VG and was rated (Start-High) for Nintendo when they still had a separate banner. The (Start-High) got it included under Nintendo, but the (Start-Mid) was not enough for VG inclusion. Thus, it's on the Nintendo list but not the main VG list, which means it's not on the workshop page (since I built that from the main VG list). Below here is a list of areas with double listings. Please add if you find any more. Pagrashtak 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VG listings

Newsletter announcement

[edit]

FYI- The next newsletter feature will be about the preparation of the 0.7 articles. See draft. I'd appreciate it if a fresh pair of eyes can look it over to see if the most pertinent information is covered. The only thing I think is missing a deadline. Does anybody know if a specific deadline for id submissions has been set? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's great, thanks. The original notification says that revisions should be selected by 20 October. Pagrashtak 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you include a link to the original announcement somewhere, as it provided a good summary of what's going on (IMO). Giggy (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info and suggestion. I've added the new content. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Fantastic work

[edit]

Just saw a link to this page (thanks Giggy). Not that you guys need much help, but if there are articles in the 0.7 cut you guys won't have time to vet, please drop them off at WT:1C so that volunteer copyeditors can give them a look. We need more requests because the some of the ones there are a bit technical. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should request for some assistance. With the deadline less than 2 weeks away, we have about 30+ more articles to review before we start making final cuts. And we've only identified 42 of the FA and GA articles. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Feel free, but it seems pretty hard. Despite the message you left at the FF project, and messages I've left on the talk page of two active FF editors, I haven't been able to get anyone on those articles. I thought those would have been some of the easier articles to get activity on, but I guess not. Pagrashtak 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting? They don't seem to have gotten many requests, maybe they have the extra time to help. The only other thing I can think of is posting WT:VG again. But with the recent drama, I worry it'll just get overlooked. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What do you think about asking them to pick any GAs we haven't gotten to? There's a lot more of them than FAs, and are more likely to need a copyedit. Pagrashtak 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try User talk:Judgesurreal777, I'm sure he'd help. Right now I'm just trying to work on Nintendogs and Mario Bros., though I don't know if they'll be ready. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already did a couple of weeks ago. Pagrashtak 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was busy trying to get Metroid (series) to FA. He recently withdrew the FAC, so he may be able to help with the FF articles now.
Asking the Editorial Team for help with the GAs sounds like a good plan. I think only about 10–12 have been finished. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speaking of Mario Bros., I need help - there's very little coverage of it, since for one, it wasn't terrible notable or successful, and for another, Google searches are difficult, since you can't just search for "Mario Bros.", because New SMB and SMB 1-3 come up far too often. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've fixed some of the too-many images issues. Care to check them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting#WP:VG. We should probably post at WT:VG again with crunch time coming up. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

At what point are some of these undesirable articles going to be replaced with more appropriate ones? I'm asking because every time I look at the page I see things marked for removal but until that's done we're not going to see how the whole list looks. Someoneanother 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that of the sub-GA class articles, the following do have enough historical significance, merely lacking in quality:
Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario World, Mortal Kombat (video game), Nintendo 64, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Color, Capcom, Blizzard Entertainment, Super Mario Galaxy, Wolfenstein 3D, North American video game crash of 1983, Midway Games, Dance Dance Revolution, Castlevania, Atari, Atari 2600, Xbox, Sega Saturn, World of Warcraft, Wii Remote, Tetris, Square Enix, Sonic the Hedgehog (video game), Sonic the Hedgehog (series), Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Mario, The Sims, The Sims 2, Shigeru Miyamoto, Resident Evil (video game), PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Pac-Man, Nintendo GameCube, New Super Mario Bros., Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, History of video games, Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Grand Theft Auto IV, GoldenEye 007, Entertainment Software Rating Board, EverQuest, Electronic Arts, Dreamcast, and Doom (video game). I think we should focus on boosting the quality of the important articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can split the list. I'll try to take care of it today and use the suggestions on this page to create a removal section. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Further removals

[edit]

I definitely voice my support for the current list of removals. But being of the mind that less is sometimes more, let me throw down a few more for your consideration:

These are borderline cases, and if someone wanted to object, I'd be okay with that. I'm just raising these, because I think these would take a lot of effort to improve. If someone has time, it's probably better spent on some B class articles. Randomran (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I think has some merit is NetHack mainly for historical reasons. But the article is in such bad shape that it's hard to say "keep it" with any conviction. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If someone felt more strongly, I'd say you may as well keep NetHack as a significant roguelike. But let's err on cutting some stuff. I feel like we can forget about Assassin's Creed. I also feel like we can drop Sony (but keep Sony Computer Entertainment, although there are a couple of paragraphs on the playstation in the main Sony article. What do you think? Randomran (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds very reasonable. I'll update the Start and C-class listings. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

None of the removals suggested so far cause any concern, or to put it another way, well chosen. Are an equal amount of better quality articles going to be put in to replace them? Someoneanother 17:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say Kirby's Dream Land and Paper Mario, but KDL isn't in great shape, and I don't know about Paper Mario. Oh, and remove Super Mario Land - it's not very good at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Link on Super Mario Land.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed on Super Mario Land. Game Boy Micro is another weak GA and considering it's just a GBA in a smaller case doesn't seem like much of a priority. Someoneanother 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Wikipedia_0.7_workshop&oldid=1238864939"