This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ronaldinho
Cleanup is finally done, and article reduced by nearly 10,000 KB in the process. Phew. Beemer69chitchat 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Danke. My next project is Cristiano Ronaldo, in which I cleaned up the ManU section yesterday, which ultimately means that I have way too much time on my hands. :) Beemer69chitchat 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Do not post RFA's until candidate has posted their acceptance. Also, new ones go on top, not bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I add you the category Wikipedia administrators?
I've been trying to populate that category. Thanks, Enigmamessage 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Your stance on adminship
I was hoping you could clear this up for me. I just read on MrKIA11's talk page that you think that people do not need to meet any requirements for adminship... even though you clearly do. I'm guessing you're not trying to mislead the candidate, so what did you actually mean? Asenine 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I understand now. Asenine 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Alizée_-_J'ai_Pas_Vingt_Ans_(sample).ogg listed for deletion
Hey, thanks for cleaning up after me, sorry I left a mess. I guess it couldn't hurt to actually read the vital project template I just moved before I leave it...
Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles.
Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page.
Feature: Reliable Sources
A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Wikipedia's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source.
To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list!
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
VG Portal again...
Hey, hate to bother again, but I was reading over Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria, and noticed that articles summaries should be around 200 words. Do you know of an example summary that has been shortened so I can edit the summaries on Portal:Video games/Featured article? After that's taken care of I'm going to finish up the Did you know months and try for Featured portal. Unless there's anything else you can think of to add or change. (Guyinblack25talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sacred2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sacred2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:DuneII.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DuneII.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons OTRS
You said that if I got permission to use an image under GFDL you'd take care of the OTRS ticket thingy for me? (memory refresh here). Well, I got hold of an image, and uploaded it at Image:Chris Metzen.jpg (I forgot the Commons aspect until I'd already hit the button to upload here, I suppose we can always migrate it over). I've emailed the permission things to permissions@wikimedia.org. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd deal with the OTRS ticket for me, rather than having my head bitten off by someone else there because I've never done it before and wouldn't be surprised if I've done something wrong. Thanks!-- Sabre (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for late reply) Aye, its been confirmed with the OTRS thing, I apparently did it alright. However, can I ask you to move the image over to Commons for me, please? I found that Commons move helper confusing, and something went wrong as it didn't work when I tried it. -- Sabre (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, looks like Giggy dealt with that when he was assessing the article. -- Sabre (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
should contact vanish after a person has chosen to walk another path?
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nero Burning ROM screenshot2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nero Burning ROM screenshot2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Wikipedia 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ghost FAC
Your oppose on the basis of potentially useful sources that don't exist seems, bluntly, really silly. We have no idea what went on inside Blizzard, and regardless of whether such information on "lively internal debate" would make interesting reading, or that the game hasn't been. The fact the sources don't exist means that the article is still as comprehensive as reliable sources allow, so this shouldn't be a problem. Verifiability, not truth, remember? Saying that you oppose on the basis of a lack of sources that don't exist, and for incorporating the official sourced reasoning which you disregard as "corporate blabber" is very much a double-standard in my eyes. -- Sabre (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue of finding the source, but whether it in fact exists. I think it is highly unlikely that Blizzard would allow its employees to speculate to press or disclose why they had effectively cancelled a game (that they still haven't officially cancelled.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've responded in the FAC. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:21
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
For as long as I've been participating with the Video games project, I noticed that you have been a constant and positive presence in discussions and the project's administrative processes. In addition, you've also taken on other tasks related to article clean up, maintenance, and overall improvement. Just want to let you know that your efforts do not go unnoticed and are greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25talk 19:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
You are quite welcome.
I've been following the discussion at WT:SEGA and will jump in if necessary. But it looks like the editors there already have it under control. Which is awesome—less work for me. :-p (Guyinblack25talk 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
Just put up an RFC over at the project regarding a problem with the Pop Culture section at Coleco, and I believe some very uncivil conduct on the part of the other party. Wanted to let you know about as well, as your input as an admin is appreciated since its always neutral. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I use both Cat Scan and AlexNewArtBot. I think the only articles that don't get caught by one of those are one's that are created from a redirect, because it's technically not a new page. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
my thesi
Thanks for your interest!
Yes, the intention is to get it online soon. I've just got to make the website work - I'm no techie you see...
Hi. Have you spoke to Beemer about this? Maybe she'll agree to scale back on (some of) her changes, since it's a GA? I looked at the pre-edited version of the article -- it looked like it could do with some trimming and copyediting, but probably not a 40% in word chop; it was not that verbose. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Article restored, which I should've done earlier. Perhaps I'm just being a curmudgeon, but I'd tired of material such as his being praised by players "that have had the task of marking him" and quite a bit of space subsequently taken up with numerous singing of his praises. It's fine in moderation, but in the end it's not wholly encyclopedic and gets lost among the otherwise quality content. I brought this up yesterday in the discussion of the Paul Scholes article (does anyone really care what Edgar Davids thinks of him?). I edited KJH well before I had my little round table discussion with Chen (he's made me less trigger-happy since then), and I still think such material should be axed and I'll likely bring it up in discussion in the future. Until then, Jaco, I'll leave the article to your devices. Cheers. sixtynine• spill it • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Forceful editing to add gameguide material at Bubble Bobble
User:Nijon76 is trying to force edit back in previously removed game guide material, including already deleted images. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons request
Hey Jacoplane. Can I make a request of you, as you're one of the VG project members whose also an admin over at Commons? Can you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Flickr_photo_upload_clarification, and tell me whether the deletion of the image in question on Commons was justified? Its a photo of Sam & Max at Comic-Con 2007, and was deleted by some other Commons admin because they thought it was copyrighted material, even though it was taken by a member of the public, published under the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and its upload had already been approved by another admin/trusted user. We've got tons of similar images up on Commons, such as on Lara Croft and Master Chief, taken from sources in the exact same style, and licensed in the same way, so this sudden discrimination against my upload is just bewildering. -- Sabre (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've started an undeletion request on that image, you can see it here if you want to pitch in. -- Sabre (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about this now, I got input from some other admins over at Commons. Sorry to trouble you with this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Wikipedia: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Wikipedia defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Wikipedia.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Wikipedia article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Wikipedia and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:FLOSS Weekly logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:FLOSS Weekly logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Tacticsogre soundtrack.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Tacticsogre soundtrack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sacred2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
