Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Casual games
- The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
The resulting WikiProject was not created
Contents
Description edit
I propose a sub-project of WikiProject video games to improve and create articles relating to casual games and casual game development. The project would focus essentially on value console titles and the online PC/Mac digital distribution market currently dominated by sites like RealNetworks and Big Fish Games. Hidden object games, point-and-click adventures, time management and other casual game types would all be included in this project. This is a large section of the industry that is primarily overlooked here at Wikipedia, in my opinion. Addionne (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
- Addionne (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaarsivius (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
- Oppose as written. Should be a task force, not a project. Long story short, if MMOs don't rate their own WikiProject (they had one, it was disbanded and folded into WPVG), neither do casual games. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Chaos. I could see a "Casual games" task force working out though, it'd be a good way to centralize discussion about casual games while allowing members to participate in discussion about video game articles in general at the main talk page. Nomader (Talk) 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't comment on the MMO project - as I was not involved. However, I am not sure the success or failure of another project should factor in to the merits of this one. I think this would make a fine task force, however I also think the people interested in editing casual game articles would often be different from those who sign up for WP:VG - as the target market is significantly different. (Primarily women, primarily older.) I also think the amount of work is significant enough to warrant a separate project. Casual games are more than a genre or set of genres - they are an industry which is significantly different from the mainstream video game industry. There are different developer conferences, different styles of game, different distribution networks and different sources for news and reviews. -Addionne (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on the grounds that this is yet another proposal to build a project/TF from the top down. This never works. You first have to develop a common focus and cooperation with other editors with actual instances of common editing. THEN when you have a sizable group of such people, you create a project/TF to organize your efforts IF necessary. Otherwise, like virtually every other child project or task force that was created top-down, this is going to be essentially a one or two-man operation until those people get bored and abandon it, leaving a mess for everyone else to clean up. It's not that I doubt you or the subject of your proposal, it's just that we've seen dozens of these sorts of projects before and they never work. The fact that you also don't have an established working group for this proposal and are basically asking for people to join it does not build confidence. If you really want to focus on improving casual game articles, the number one thing you would be doing is editing those articles, and according to your edit history you haven't even been focusing on that. By comparison, look at the edit history of veteran editors of WPVG -- you'll see that they are constantly and consistently working on VG articles, and that's why WPVG succeeds while other projects so often fail. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Ham Pastrami, task forces and projects should be created to serve an existing group of editors, rather than be created for a one or two editors to serve. They're bureaucracies which take time and conscious effort to maintain, if that load is not shared then the project or taskforce leeches time away from those involved and as a result less of the real work is done. Someoneanother 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above and below. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion edit
Addionne, that should go where "ProjectDescription" is. Vaarsivius (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "casual game" restricted to a videogame type? Or are there casual games that are not videogames? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming of this proposal seems to make it cover all casual games. If this is not the scope, the proposal needs to be renamed. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Casual video games instead. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be a standalone project rather than a WP:VG Task force? - X201 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As others have already stated, I believe that the end result can still be accomplished as a task force of the VG project. All the articles in the proposed scope can easily be worked on using already existing resources. Also, historically, our task forces have fared better than most of the sub-projects. Though it may seem like we're "shooting down" your idea, I think you'll find that going the task force route is a win-win. The VG projector gets more active members that can contribute to the review and editing process, and you and your collaborators can piggy back on those process as well as the knowledge base of the senior members. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.