Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Getting started edit

Well, the page is created. I believe the first order of business is to decide whether or not this will be a department or a task force. Another important task will be to come to an agreement as what the general outline of guidelines will be, details can be ironed out as we go.

Some input on the draft used to start this page would also be appreciated.

  • I personally feel that something is missing from the "What the department is not" section. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
  • The statement, "However, without out-of-universe content, the character article cannot become a Good article or a Featured article, and can be a candidate for deletion or merging" in the "Character articles" I think implies that anything that is not GA or FA can and/or should be merged or deleted. Rephrasing it would help, but I'm at a loss as to what would be better.

These aren't that important to getting started, but I think they should be addressed in any discussion about what the guidelines should be. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I would classify it as a department more than a task force, mostly because the other task forces in the video games department are about specific types or genres of games. That's just one person's opinion though and the general wikipedia one is a task force. Perhaps we should also add that this department isn't responsible for keeping pages up to date, that's another thing that should be concerned with the main editors of a page. With regards to the first question covered in the FAQ section, perhaps we should add what the deparment is, in general, responsible for (things like grammar, style, formatting, etc) to make everything as clear and over-stated as possible. One more thing to add, perhaps we should have a subsection that lists articles that are currently being discussed for nobility and merging... or would that be appropriate somewhere else? Zemalia 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say department too. Regarding the second bulleted point I think that bit's fine, it doesn't imply to me that all non-GA/FA articles should be deleted or merged. Maybe changing "can be a candidate" to "could be a candidate" would make it a little clearer that it's not an automatic process? Good job with the department page, Guyinblack25. :) Miremare 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A section for current projects the department is working/collaborating on would be a good idea. Thought I don't know if it should be a subpage or just a section. I guess it would depend on the amount of work the department takes on.
I also like the keeping up to date thing, I'll add something like that in the "what is not" section and I'll update the sentence per Miremare's suggestion.
One comment though, do we really want to be responsible for grammar? I understand that some of that fulls under clean up, but do we want to explicitly state that, or just do what we can on grammar and focus more on structure and formatting? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Grammar would probably fall under copy-editing, in the "not" section. I'd say it's not expressly our responsibility here, but of coure it's down to the individual editor. For "current projects" I think a section would be fine for now, if we need a sub-page later we can always do that then. Miremare 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about making some 'custom'ish banners for the project that can be put on the talk page so that all editors know that its currently going through clean up. We should also make a note on the talk pages of some basic stuff that editors of the page can do to make it better after we're finished the cleanup (something along the lines of letting them know that citing would be helpful, etc). Just an idea though... also, I'm glad I brought up the grammar comment, even if I was on the other side of the fence on the topic. Zemalia 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, {{todo}} ought to suffice for informing editors of what should be done. Maybe we could modify the Wikiproject banner for something relating to clean-up? I think there's a provision on it for requesting peer review, it wouldn't be dissimilar to that. -- Sabre 11:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like this?
Anomie 12:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed the above transclusions as no longer relevant. Anomie 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect! -- Sabre 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sabre said it best, those look awesome. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The point on B-class articles made me think that perhaps the project should tighten it's assessment for B-class candidates. It just seems to be used rather too casually for articles not really deserving of it and those that are perhaps are not far off good article status. Take this revision of a character article and it's current revision after a major overhaul. Both are rated as B-class, although the first is simply a compilation of "cruft" (I hate that term), referenced only to the game's manuals, whilst the second is an attempt to move the article in the right direction in relation to WP:FICTION with commentary on design and reception. This probably isn't the best place for this kind of observation, but it's this page that spurred the thought. -- Sabre 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe that's something that can be done in conjunction with the Assessment department. The more collaborative effort among the whole VG Project the better. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Members section edit

This particular task force needs a members section. One of the goals of this task force is to apply global and project consensus on gamecruft issues to local areas where fans "decide" otherwise. In order to do this properly, it needs to be clear that the editor in question is in fact not doing anything random. User:Krator (t c) 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is going to be a task force then I agree, but right now it seem it's still up in the air whether this will be a task force or a department. A member list for a task force will put a more defined sense of responsibility on those listed here. Though a department won't have that, it will still be a defined list of guidelines to cite when disputes arise. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Notability edit

Proposition: all references to notability in this article should be replaced by excessive detail, with grammar changes etc. Argument: cleanup is about otherwise notable subjects that have bad articles. It may be more clear to see that particular notability when an article is cleaned up - this should be expressed in the proposal. It is not the case, however, that the task force is cleaning up not notable material. It is cleaning up material that is excessively detailed in describing the subject. User:Krator (t c) 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes sense. I still feel that we should notability should be at least briefly mentioned though. If nothing else as a general guideline we have to adhere to or something to that effect. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Copy edited my original comment (Guyinblack25 talk 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Deletion edit

As I mentioned earlier, I think this is a good idea but could easily be subverted into a "deletion blitz" task force. All it would take is someone asserting a whole class of articles is non-notable based on some few examples, then mass-redirect a number of articles while pointing at "Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to clean up content, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes" to stifle all discussion.

I wonder if redirection and deletion decisions shouldn't be left to existing channels, limiting the scope of this project to actually improving articles instead of eliminating them. I expect I'll be out-!voted on this though. Anomie 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is precisely why I think this task force should be limited to removing excessive detail. User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also makes sense. However, I can't help but feel that we'll encounter this whether or not we have deletions in the scope. Should we make some provision for it or make a mention of it in the "What is not" section? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I added something in the "What is not" section about deletion. Let me know what you guys think; if it can be improved/tweaked or needs to be removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Looks good to me, except IMO it needed to mention merges and redirections as well. Redirecting (or poorly merging) an article is a way to effectively delete it without the trouble of AfD. Anomie —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be a good idea to mention that this would be a useful place to gauge opinion on how "deletion worthy" an article or articles are without the bother of going straight to AfD. For e.g. if I were to say here "I think Article X might need to be deleted but I'm not sure," then members of the Cleanup Department/Task Force can can offer their opinions on it, and it can then be sent to AfD, or cleaned up, depending on the result (of course the result wouldn't be binding, but an indicator would still be useful). As Krator says above, there's no point in cleaning up an article that's non-notable or otherwise un-rescuable, and on the flip-side it would hopefully cut down on notable articles being AfD'd unnecessarily. Miremare 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Task force or Department edit

I guess let's get this sorted out in a separate section. I guess the best way to do so would be to list either Department or Task force followed by a reason why. Of course this isn't a majority vote and we'll go with consensus.

  • Department - Task forces can sometimes become inactive, while a department is a fixed list of guidelines for current and future use. While a task force would certainly have it's benefits over a department, a department will provide most of the same benefits as a task force and will provide those benefits better in the long term. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Task Force - The nature of the work that is done here makes it important that those making the edits have some kind of connection to the project consensus. Being a member of a task force (no requirements, just a list, maybe removing inactives though) establishes such a connection. The cleanup work that is being done will mainly amount to removing others' writing. That is not a very nice thing to do to others, but also not very nice on yourself. Just take a look at User talk:BetacommandBot for examples why. Furthermore, I do not see how task forces and departments are different in terms of becoming inactive. We have quite inactive departments (assessment never has more than 4 people working on it in a given month) and the reason for inactive task forces is the limited scope they usually have, not the name applied to them. Summarised, it does not really matter, but naming it a task force has that little positive effect that makes it worthwhile. User:Krator (t c) 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Task Force - Although I think there are benifits to a department, I agree that having an active list of participating members would benifit the project. In cases of desputes, editors can refer to the list and request help from another member of the clean up squad. Also, the fact that the main Wikipedia cleanup is a task force suggests that we should follow suit as well. References and guidelines are always helpful, but there is nothing that says they can't be put on a task force page as well. Zemalia 06:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Question I'm not too familiar with the rules of these things so forgive me if the answer is obvious, but if the main advantage of being a task force is the list of members, what's the reason that a department can't have such a list? Miremare 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there are any official pages that state this, but I've never seen a department page with a list of members. Department pages are usually just guidelines with to-do lists, from my experience anyways. On the other hand, I don't see any reason we can't make a list called Active Users instead of participants. Zemalia (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there aren't specific rules, why don't we just make it a department and have all the other task-force-y bits that we want? Would anyone object, and if so on what grounds if there are no rules on it? Seems to me that any disadvantages to not being one or the other might be a bit uneccessary... Miremare 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm fine either way really, so long as it's nailed down before we get things going. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

No troubles with the name, as long as there's the member's list around. Go ahead and stamp this as approved with whatever name so we can get started. User:Krator (t c) 12:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to confirm things so we can get this out of the way, the consensus is a department with a member list? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I do believe we have a concensus! Zemalia (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting comment edit

I added a request for comments on the proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-13 16:52

"Character articles" section edit

After looking over the page again, something occurred to me. It doesn't really mention things like Universe of Kingdom Hearts, Mushroom (Mario), and List of Nexus: The Jupiter Incident ships. Should the "Character articles" section be expanded to encompass all fictional elements of games? Like "characters of", "world of", and other specific supplementary articles. I don't think the wording needs to change too much as the basic idea is there, just need to switch out some nouns here and there. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It would probably be a good idea, just to further clarify things. Definately want to emphasize the need for out of universe context when people are asking for the pages to be cleaned up, otherwise there is going to be some serious merging going on.... Zemalia (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, no need to exclude other fictional elements. Miremare 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I edited and expanded the section to try to encompass all fictional elements. Let me know if it's conveyed properly or any ideas you guys have to improve it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Current projects edit

Ok, I tweaked the page to reflect the consensus, which I assume means the department is for all intents and purposes up and running. As far as making it official within the VG Project, I'm not familiar with the protocol for that. I removed the text about not being active from the "Current projects" section, but left it on the "Requests" section for now. Mainly so we aren't overwhelmed with requests while we get things off the ground.
With regard to current projects, I suggest we address the topic which spurred the creation of this department the various King of Fighters character articles. I'm sure this will be a rather daunting project, so depending on how many people are involved with it will determine if there will be others to address other projects, such as the first request listed, Playable races in the Warcraft series.
With regard to future projects, after the first project is decided and underway, should a criteria be established for collaborative efforts of the project. And should such criteria differentiate between current projects and requests? Like smaller requests be handled by a single editor and requests for larger articles and more important articles be handled by the whole department.
Any other suggestions, ideas, or comments? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

How is the KoF thing going to work? Is it going to be a long discussion type of deal or are we just going to slap on some merge tags and have separate discussions for when someone believes that a character may have some worth? I can take care of actually getting them merged once we reach that point. TTN (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if we do tackle the KoF articles first, I assume we'd add the merge tags and go from there. We can assist with the merger as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Something I would suggest about merging character articles to lists, is that we should only do so when the list contains sufficient sources to prove notability, or when we can add such sources ourselves. It's a little difficult to justify to people that we're removing their articles on notability grounds only to merge to a list which itself is of questionable notability, not to mention the fact that someone could come along and AfD it, making the merge a waste of our time. List of characters from The King of Fighters contains only one (as far as I can tell) independent source - gamespy - the rest are from SNK or Ignition Entertainment. Miremare 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the list has to become a redirect to a general character section, that'll be fine. It'll act as a placeholder for a bit, and if it cannot assert notability, that is that. If anybody is going to oppose this after WP:FICT is explained, they'll just be the type that'll use any means necessary to keep the articles. Those are the types that we ignore anyways. TTN (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now, I have started a discussion (Talk:List of characters from The King of Fighters#Merge), and I will be placing the tags soon. If anyone wants to change the statement to sound more formal/polite/whatever, please do so. TTN (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After scanning through about half of the articles, there were few third party sources used. This of course does not mean they are not out there. Personally, I think there will be more on gaming sites, but I don't know how many. Even if they are not added right away, merging them together will at least set the stage for them to be added later. I have a feeling that given the number of video game articles on Wikipedia, there will a good chunk of wasted effort in trying to salvage some of them. But that comes with the territory. Hopefully other editors will see our good faith efforts and give the VG project time to clean house before trying to delete them. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

King of Fighters edit

It looks like the numerous King of Fighters characters articles have become the topic of discussion and I guess in a way the first project. If there are no objections, I think it'll be a good place to start. I hate to sound like a stickler for rules and guidelines, but one question I feel should be asked is how involved should the department become?
Per What the dept. is not - "Merges and redirections are handled on the talk pages of the articles concerned or by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The cleanup department may assist with merging after consensus for the merge has been reached through normal channels."
So how involved do we get on the talk pages about merging? Do we favor it or remain neutral? Either way I'd like to help with the end decision, but not sure how much to help in getting there. What do you guys think? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Well, I think we should voice our opinion but try to remain as unbiased as possible. There are some already harsh comments being swung at the people proposing a merger by the people who think it should be kept seperate. Now, I'm not personally very well versed in this game, but I took a look through a couple of the pages to get an idea of it anyways. I have to agree for the most part, that a merger should take place on the majority of the articles. Perhaps what should be done, since there's so much contesting about it from editors who know the subject better, is a merging of the smaller articles, leaving editors some time to fix the problems they have with the larger articles, such as getting references and out of universe information. I don't want us ending up sounding like the bullies of the VG project... Just my two cents though. Zemalia (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should try and come up with consensus for merges here, and leave notes on talk pages of articles to notify of discussions here, IMHO. User:Krator (t c) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Krator, that would make things much easier to keep track of. As long as the merge tags are in place and the talk page entry provides a direct link to the discussion here, that sounds the best way to do it. Miremare 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely disagree, the consensus for merges should be made there and not handed down from here with little input from the editors who know the subject—that sort of thing is exactly what I was concerned about when this department began.
Guyinblack25, IMO "we" as in "the Cleanup Department" should not get involved, but "we" as individual editors can feel free to do just as we would if the department did not exist. Anomie 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What "kind of thing" would that be? Sinister ulterior motives? ;) I don't see where anyone's suggesting there should be little input from the articles' regular editors. The advantages of centralising discussions here are from a practical and organisational perspective, as well as gaining concensus from a wider audience. Tuck these away on the articles in question and who's likely to notice them other than "us" (if even all of us) and the articles' regular editors? We'll end up with these being simply arguments with a single "cleanup" editor on one side and all of the articles' regulars flinging insults from the other, as seems to already be the case with the King of Fighters one. The more open and visible a debate is, the better, IMO. Miremare 01:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a number of people I've seen around Wikipedia who seem to derive great pleasure from getting things deleted (Note that I'm not saying any of them are here), and one of their tricks seems to be building consensus on a project page and then use that to stifle any later discussion by the editors of the articles in question. As I said before, IMO a cleanup project is a good idea but another forum for that sort of deletionism is not. By all means, anyone here who is interested in that merge discussion should go participate there and (if so inclined) support this single cleanup editor, and haul out the WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:ATA, and other abbreviations as appropriate. Maybe I'll even do so, even though I couldn't care less about "The King of Fighters" (whatever that is). Anomie 03:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you both have a good point. We should voice our opinion but try to remain as unbiased as possible, and voice it as an video game editor and not a representative of the department. And in order to maintain a friendly and unbiased manner, it would be best to keep such discussions off the department talk page. Otherwise we'd probably be labeled as mergists, deletionists, and/or wikinazis. We've all dealt with editors that simply aren't aware of or have a different idea of what Wikipedia is meant to be. We just deal with as we always have; talk it out, show them the policies/guidelines, and tell them it isn't personal. It's not ideal, but I'd to hate strong arm these guys and justify their claims. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
One the goals this project should have, IMHO, is to prevent valid information from getting deleted by building proper pages such as character lists (some are featured!) or setting articles (e.g. Azeroth) from a ton of little, non notable pages that would be deleted anyway. User:Krator (t c) 10:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another good point. I'd say our current guidelines cover that, but a conscious effort will have to be made to make sure that happens. One suggestion- I remember when myself and some other editors were sifting through the Kingdom Hearts character artciles. We copy edited/cleaned up excessive details twice. Once on the separate character article before the merge, and then again after the content had been merged into the main article. It was extra work but I think the end result was good. I think that should be done with at least the trivia sections of KoF articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll get started on a few. There is some information that is incredibly fancruft though, like breast size (and I'm not saying this just because I'm a girl) and her "ranking status for larger breasts". Yeah... that is just being weeded out, unless someone can find an encyclopedic use for it. For the most part I'm just cleaning up the lead, adding fact dates, and revamping the article to work in trivia sections. Anything else you guys can think of? Zemalia (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a plan. And yes, please do remove anything related to breast size, unless it's related to the character creation (which I doubt). (Guyinblack25 talk 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Anomie, you make a good point - I hadn't considered how centralising discussion might look. But there will have to be an effective way of letting people know what discussions are happening and where. Ideally a section on the WP:CVG page (like the bit listing deletion discussions). If we don't have something like this, the discussions will likely consist of the articles' regular editors and one or two of "us", making concensus impossible.
I have to admit that I've always been rather confused by the term "deletionist" - what does it mean in the context that you're using it? Someone who likes to see things deleted, obviously, but are these articles that do or don't deserve to be deleted? It would seem to me to be a big uphill battle (if not a practically impossible one) to get things deleted that don't deserve it, and a remarkably unrewarding one at that. If it refers to people who like to see things deleted that do deserve to be deleted, then I don't see where the possible negative connotations are and, in an ideal world, I would expect every Wikipedian to be of that mind. Anyway, I agree with you on the discussion point, but I'm not sure about this "deletionism" stuff. Miremare 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll come up with something to notify others about mergers. A section on the VG Project page sounds like a good idea. And as far as dealing with biased editors, I've found that most will back down after you spell out the policies to them. A repetitive process, but it works. The few that get out of hand, we just call in reinforcements and an admin if needed.
Basically what I've come to understand a deletionist as is a term that is most times used by editors that feel articles that are important to them are constantly being deleted. The reasons for the deletion can vary but is often lack of notability and references. Poor writing style and article organization also play a part. This is often happens to articles on fictional content; games, tv series, anime/manga, books, etc. It's not as bad as it sounds, but sometimes I can't help feel that there are some editors out there that are out to get articles like that. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Something like WP:VG/D for proposed merges/transwikis is a good idea for WP:VG as a whole, not just this department. Regarding deletionism, the description at Meta sums it up pretty well IMO. The major problem I have with deletionism is when it is combined with immediatism, wikilawyering, and general WP:ABF, or when deletion is used in a misguided attempt to counter systematic bias. More than once I've seen "It's a video game article" used as a reason to support an AfD or oppose an FAC. In this "King of Fighters" issue, I really don't care whether or not the articles stay or get merged, but I want the decision to be based on the actual consensus and Wikipedia:Notability and not on whichever side is better at canvassing and being tendentious. Anomie 13:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, I think it's fairly telling that the "arguments against deletionism" on the meta deletionism page are both few and weak (if not irrelevant), and I fail to see the logic or merit in pejoratively labelling those who follow policy and guidelines, and are in favour of building an actual encyclopedia. Yes, we've all seen silly arguments like "delete, it's a video game", but if you're worried that these hold water as a deletion argument, then I think you're worrying unecessarily. No admin worth their salt is going to fall for nonsense like that, and if they do it's their fault, not anyone else's. And on the flip-side, haven't we seen (and vastly more in number I think) the equally execrable "keep it's notable"? Miremare 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Rationale for deletionism" is similarly weak and irrelevant, so what's your point? I think you're either misinterpreting my statements or talking about others' statements regarding deletionism, as I use the term for those who seem to think the best thing they can do to build an encyclopedia is to try to get things deleted rather than as a slur. As it says on the page there, on many articles even deletionists and inclusionists agree (and personally, I think I'm a mergist if I need a label). And yes, any admin worth their salt shouldn't fall for such blatant nonsense in either direction (even though they do sometimes), but it's not so easy when it's well-written nonsense that cites bits and pieces of several policies and guidelines, especially if the admin isn't neutral in the first place. Anomie 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I was asking before - who exactly you consider to be the deletionists. Judging by your final sentence there it's people who argue for things to be deleted that policy and guidelines say should not be deleted. In which case I would agree 100% that they are an unpleasant bunch and to be discouraged, but still, I think, a very minor problem that we don't really need to worry about. Consensus, after all. The more editors that are aware of the discussions, the less chance of anything like that being possible from either side, which is what I've been in favour of from the off. Miremare 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not wanting to intrude into the philosophical debate, but you will without doubt end up here or here. My suggestion would be: go forth and edit. User:Krator (t c) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you guys know that I started putting up some of the KOF articles up for the merger after cleaning them. I figure if we at least get it done one at a time, with a discussion, it might go over smoother. Please come and comment on the talk page (Talk:List of characters from The King of Fighters#Merge) so we can get consensus for them to make things go quicker. Zemalia (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion seems to have calmed down there. Do you need any help trimming some character articles? And if so which ones? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Dark Cloud edit

Just wanted to see what everyone thought should be done after an article has been cleaned up? Currently Dark Cloud has had a good deal of progress made with cleaning up. See version comparison. With a little more editing, it should be "cleaned up". My question is what will be done afterwards? I assume it should be archived somewhere like the Assessment and Peer review departments do. Should something like that be created? Also if we do archive it, what information should be listed if any besides an article name? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Rayman Raving Rabbids edit

Could someone take a look at Rayman Raving Rabbids. I tried cleaning it up some, but since I am not that familiar with the game I did not do that much with it. Here's the edit difference. It wasn't as cluttered with in-game info like Dark Cloud was, but I think an extra pair of eyes would help. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I've sorted out the dates in the Infobox - Swapping the flagicon for vgrelease. - X201 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thank you very much. Any other ideas, otherwise I'll move it to Archive in a couple of days. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I've thinned out the intro but I think the main things it needs now is citations and some work doing on the OR stuff like the bugs section. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, if that's the case, then clean up is technically done. I'll move it to the archive. Once we've organized the content and tagged stuff as needing citations or being OR, then the department has done what is needed. Of course, feel free to continue improving the article if you'd like. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Another alternative edit

With so many articles and lists that do not belong here, instead of redirecting to articles that are notable enough or just deleting them, shouldn't we be using transwiking to Wikia gaming to our advantage? A lot of articles like these should be moved to its own wiki, which does exist in that case. Using transwiki would also help prevent any redirect from being reverted and save the efforts many had made in building those articles. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we traswiki to wikia very often, but to StategyWiki. But yeah, that is a good idea in general. Slap {{Move to gaming wiki}} on them. Japiekrekel (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And list it here, too. We're about doing, not tagging, here. User:Krator (t c) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging character articles to character lists edit

Considering the amount of work it will take to merge the King of Fighters articles, I believe it's vitally important that we establish notability for this list, and indeed any list on the receiving end of a merge, before proceeding with the merge. Currently List of characters from The King of Fighters doesn't prove its notability. I'm sure it can, but this won't always be the case, and to put a lot of work into a list that could itself be a target for deletion would be a stupid waste of time. Miremare 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and just looking through about ten of the articles I didn't find a single citation or out of universe sentence. However, in this case, I think we should go ahead with the merge and give people time to correct it. Or maybe not... *sighs* Its a hard thing to decide on. If we do end up just deleting everything, we might end up with a very angry mob on our hands. Perhaps I should stick with my first sentence.... Zemalia (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not trying to butt heads with you Miremare, but I think having some of the resulting lists/articles from mergers we help with end up getting deleted will be an inevitability. Unless we go out of our way to research the necessary sources to establish notability, but I don't see that happening very often. Though I do agree with you that such results would be wastes of time and that guidelines will help minimize that. Did you have anything in mind? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
But that needn't be the case; if we look for sources and can't find any, that would be a compelling reason not to go ahead with the merge and save ourselves needless work - we shouldn't be automatically merging everything that's submitted to us after all. I'm not saying we should source and reference everything (or even anything) in the resulting article, but it would make sense to at least include a few external links that prove notability and secure the future of the article. I, for one, really couldn't justify devoting my time to merging something that was going to get deleted at the first sign of an AfD, especially as I'd have no choice but to vote delete! Zemalia: I see the concerns about the angry mob, but making ourselves popular was never really on the cards with this department... It's not actually us who deletes articles (which can and should be pointed out), and anything we do send to AfD we can even abstain from voting on if anyone feels it might look bad. Miremare 20:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like compiling a suitable EL list, it sounds like a good idea to help the list/article along. I like where you're going with a search of sources too. Perhaps a quick search on several gaming sites for articles could be used to help gauge the likelihood of notability. Maybe even a quick google search too; don't know just throwing out ideas.
The only reason I mention that deletions are inevitable is that once we're done with it, it's mostly up to other editors to improve it further; unless we go out of our way to. Depending on the article and/or subject, I'd be willing to. Though I wouldn't want to make a habit out of it. Anyway, an article that is left alone, even with an available supply of reliable sources, can end up getting deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

In my opinion it is best to apply WP:IAR here and not nominate those article for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The treatment of characters in a list rather than outright deletion satisfies the criteria set out at WP:FICT, and for the moment is fine. I see no problem in allowing the editors who commonly work the article to bring it up to par. Any AfD brought on the article immediately after the merge would be rather pointy. As for our role in this, we should be doing nothing more than streamlining the merge. Sure, if we stumble upon viable sources to include, then they can by all means be placed in, but our priority is to make sure the merge proceeds well, which is the purview of our task force/department (did we ever decide on that btw?). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What criteria says a list of non-notable characters is OK? An article is an article and has to prove notability. I don't really understand why you're suggesting we should be doing nothing more than "streamlining the merge"... are you saying that you only care about getting the merge done, and if it gets deleted after that it's no concern of yours? If so, why bother doing it? It's surely a fundamental contradiction to do this without even making sure the article we're creating meets notability requirements - what kind of credibility can a department have that doesn't follow the rules it's trying to enforce on others? Miremare 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm referring to the merging for the individual characters that is being done instead of an AfD, which is stated in WP:FICT. Anyhow, I was under the impression that the digging for relevant out-of-universe sources was to be done by the common editors of the article, seeing as the notability of the article in question isn't really in doubt. By "streamlining," I was reiterating that we should be making sure that the list is not composed of excessive plot details, game guide information, or unnecessary trivia as the merge takes place. In any case, there's no need for sounding indignant. This isn't the end of the world we're discussing. Relax. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I'm not intentionally sounding indignant, sorry. Presumably you're referring to the second point of WP:FICT#Non-notable topics, but this refers to merging to articles that already prove notability (see the two notes, 4 and 5), whereas character lists will mostly not already do this, and in many cases will be unable to do so at all. Of course, no policy or guideline says that we can't merge to a non-notable article, but surely common sense would dictate that it's best to avoid that when it's no less likely to be deleted than the ones we're removing? I'm just trying to make sure we're not going to be wasting our time. Miremare 15:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sephiroth hits the nail on the head on what this department should be about. If all the excessive details, game guide information and unnecessary trivia is gone (i.e. a true cleanup is performed), if there is an article left, it has a place in Wikipedia. If you're trying to remove things on notability grounds, this is not the right venue. To be honest, I do not think there is any viable list (Characters, factions, games) that can be deleted on notability grounds within the project scope of WP:VG. In our extensive discussion here, it is evident that notability is not what it is about.. Miremare, I encourage you to adopt the qualities Sephiroth lists above as defining for a good video game article, instead of notability. NB: the preceding argument does not apply to games which are not notable in themselves, i.e. have received no coverage by any of the major game reviewers. NB2: on the "don't waste our time", note the "if there is an article left" above. abouUser:Krator (t c) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect Krator, that's simply not true. A stand-alone character list is an article and all articles, even so-called "sub-articles" are subject to the same rules. Lists such as this one are different because they are a way of effectively organising a series of legitimate articles in a coherent way (and would be trivially easy to prove notable anyway), but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about a list of characters with no individual articles or discernable notability. There are hundreds of articles within the scope of WP:VG that fail this requirement, and I don't understand your claim that no VG related lists can be deleted on notability grounds. They can, and have been, and continue to be. Nor do I understand your mention of the FIFA soundtracks AfD - notability is exactly what that was about. What do you think it was about?
There being "an article left" after a merge is not relevant to whether the article in question is worthy of deletion or not, that's down to whatever policies or guidelines it may or may not violate. Also if you read my above posts you will see that I am not arguing for things to be removed on notability grounds, I am saying that if it would still be possible for them to be deleted on notability grounds, there is little point in doing the merge in the first place. "What this department is about" is not ignoring the basic fiction guidelines, or indeed choosing what policies or guidelines to follow and which to ignore. Miremare 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that the initial action of merging them gets us on the right track. If it is deleted afterwards, so be it. It makes the process smoother than sixty AfDs or sixty revert wars from bold redirecting. A while back, I merged the characters of Samurai Shodown to a list, waiting three months, and eventually it was redirected (though with a lot of backlash from fans). In regards to wasting time, that list had pretty much the same amount of characters, most of them the same size as these, and it only took me a couple of days on and off. If we have even three people help, it'll go quickly. Though, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to establish the list's notability; it just shouldn't override the other objectives. TTN (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess to recap, do we have any ideas on how to determine a general idea of notability on a potential article/list from a merger? I believe Miremare suggested compiling a list of appropriate "External Links", and also a search of sources too. I commented back about doing a quick search on several gaming sites for articles could be used to help gauge the likelihood of notability. Maybe a quick google search too. Do we have any other ideas on how to determine notability? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
A few quick sweeps are all that we should feel is necessary. Of course, other users can go deeper if they want. TTN (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully I don't sound too preachy with this, but I think we may have gotten off-topic a bit. But intellectual discussions about our views on policy can be equally productive in the right venue. While we all may have varying ideas about notability and proper articles, I think it is safe to assume we all want what is best for Wikipedia and more specifically, what is best for the VG Project. Regardless of how much we do with mergers, the goal is to improve the overall quality of the articles and lists we work on by cleaning them up. I suspect some of our efforts will go to waste in that some articles we work on may get deleted down the road, even if some of us (though it's irrelevant, myself include) want to prevent that.

Though that can be disheartening, it is simply a part of the daily activities of Wikipedia, and part of the constant uphill struggle towards higher quality. Though Wikipedia has designed ways to remove content, it has also designed ways to add content. Just because it gets deleted doesn't mean it can't be brought back in the proper fashion (I assume we all agree that means with proper sourcing, establishing notability, and including real-world content). Simply put, we do the best we can to improve articles and lists by cleaning them up to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia and the VG Project. Everything after that is for other departments to decide and generally does not concern this department. As editors though, we are free to participate in every facet of the article creation and deletion process, as I'm sure we already do and will continue to do.

Back on topic, it looks like we have some proposed general guidelines to determine if the department should assist/facilitate mergers of character articles into lists and larger articles.

  1. Compile a list of appropriate "External Links"
  2. Perform a quick sweep of sources on a few gaming sites for articles related to the topic (not the just game). The more there are the more likely the topic is notable.

If this sounds acceptable to everyone then I'd say we try them out a couple times and see how they work out. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree that this is getting rather off-topic; I did not intend to start a discussion on the rights or wrongs of Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, I intended only to suggest a way of deciding which tasks to take on and which to reject. It's a fallacy after all to think that everything left on our "new requests" section is going to be workable, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking otherwise. I only wish, with this suggestion, to help people decide this one way or the other. Of course it's up to individual editors whether they want to take on any merging work, but personally I would rather not waste time working on something that doesn't meet inclusion criteria, and I believe so would most other editors. Despite objections, I still believe that notability is a vital starting point for anything we do. Miremare 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, notability along with expected workload, rated importance, and immediacy of needed action are things we should look at when determining which projects to work on. Hopefully the guidelines above will work to help determine a general idea of possible notability. Should we include those guidelines on the department page? Though I have no idea where guidelines like those would go. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 06:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Although notability should be considered, it is not the purpose of this department to actively determine the notability of articles. While we certainly can decline to cleanup articles that clearly should be merged or deleted, we should give the benefit of the doubt most of the time if the article gives the appearance of notability. To illustrate, if an article was composed entirely of either plot details, game guide information, or extraneous trivia, then we could deny to cleanup on those grounds, and recommend a merge take place, or an AfD if necessary. However, if an article was seemingly notable, then we should go ahead with the cleanup. The act of digging for sources to really determine whether the article is notable or not should not be the purview of this department. That said, this point becomes irrelevant if we actually do the cleanup and nothing significant is left to establish a real world context. Rather than being disheartening, we've uncovered that an article really is not notable, and proper action can be taken then. As such, this becomes beneficial in a fashion, where we're upholding quality and notability standards.
To reiterate, if the article clearly is composed of nothing but cruft, then we can deny cleanup and offer alternatives, including merging or an AfD. If not, then we can perform a cleanup, and see how the article looks after that is completed. Should sufficient real world context not be present to justify the article's notability, then we can recommend a course of action. If there is sufficient information, then joy. In either case, however, our action becomes beneficial: we've either exposed a non-notable article or cleaned up an existing notable one. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I have some time at the moment, I'm going to go through every single character and find out which ones have sources and references and/or out of universe information. I shall come back here and report my findings in a couple of hours. Perhaps then we can finally come to a consensus. Zemalia 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My findings were poor, but signifigant. Only two articles have character development sections, but I found that quite a few of them had one sentence in the trivia section that was out of universe. Since the King of Fighters characters is what started this discussion, I thought I could bring some insight. We should pay close attention to the trivia sections when merging into lists when looking for out of universe info. That's my conclusion. Zemalia 14:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, just to recap so we understand all of the suggestions. Combining all the ideas so far in the order that it looks like they should be performed:
  1. Look over the article to see if the appropriate real-world content and references are currently there. Including a closer look at any content in trivia sections.
  2. Compile a list of appropriate "External Links" if one is not present.
  3. If the appropriate content is not present, then a quick sweep of sources on a few gaming sites for articles related to the topic can be performed. (I think this should be done on some of the articles of poorer quality to help give the benefit of the doubt)
  4. If the department does not feel that the topic is not notable enough through the above process to warrant clean up, then other editors may perform a more in depth search of reliable sources to help establish notability.
  5. If the department still feels that the topic is not notable enough, then it will provide appropriate suggestions. (e.g. Deletion, a full merger, a selective merger, etc.)
How do these sound? I think a process like this (excluding #4) should take about 5-10 minutes to perform and though it will not definitively show notability, it will give a general idea of it. Of course, these are not all encompassing and there will probably be some exceptions that pop up, but those can be examined as needed. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

{{proposal}} edit

So are we still just a proposal, or are we "official" now? Anomie 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, I'd say since there's no opposition to the formation and it's been decided to become a department that it's official. However I don't what, if any, steps would need to be taken to make this official. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
There have not been any objections here or on WT:CVG, so I've removed the proposed tag. We didn't jump through any special hoops for any of the previous departments, there's clearly consensus that this is a good idea. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-29 20:17
I've added it to the main project page, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games#Cleanup. I just copied the description from this page. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 20:08
Awesome, thank you Jaco. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

cvgproj template edit

Please add any articles that are selected for cleanup by this project to the relevant section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do (used on the {{cvgproj}} talk page template. Hopefully that will enable us to enlist more contributors. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 00:48

Archive edit

FYI- The archive page has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup/Archive. The layout includes both "Current Projects" and "Request", but is not set in stone. Leave any suggestions or comments to improve the set up on the discussion page. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Guitar Hero articles: IMHO need editing (and possible merge) edit

(Not sure if this is the correct place for this post - please move to the correct place if not. Thanks.)
I am a stranger to WikiProject Video games, so I don't know what your standards are, but the article Guitar Hero (series) seems way too long to me. We also have articles on various individual games in the Guitar Heroes series -- see Guitar Hero.
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, this a suitable place to request stuff like this. You can also list it at the bottom of the main cleanup page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup#Requests for cleanup). Length isn't always an issue when dealing with articles, especially video game series articles. But after glancing over it, some sections could use some trimming and bit more organization. Since it's the holidays right now, most of the editors are kinda of taking it easy, but we'll definitely give it some attention afterwards. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The length for such an article is appropriate, given how many games are in the series and the rather large cultural impact the games have made. In fact, I would say it isn't long enough, as if it was FA quality, it would likely be longer than Crazy Taxi (series). The treatment of individual games as their own articles is also appropriate, given that they are all individually notable. The only thing that is iffy for me is the song lists, which lean a little too much towards game guide material, but seeing as they have been kept in AfDs, I won't go there. Anyhow, if you have a cleanup request, then list it here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transcendence (video game) article edit

I've been asked by George, the developer of a game called Transcendence, to spruce up the article on said game. However, I'm pretty new to creating and editing articles, and I have little knowledge on what to add and/or rewrite, how to do so, and I especially don't know what would be suitable for the article (I've read some of the articles on the cleanup of video games articles, which has helped a little). I was thinking of adding a screenshot of gameplay, creating a section called "Creation and influence", expanding on the influences on the creation and development of the game such as Star Control 2 and Nethack, and other such things. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Yamikotai (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at the video game article guidelines. Also, articles that have been listed as featured articles are always a good source for inspiration. Finally, since you seem to have personal relationship with the developer, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-29 18:52
Personally, I question the notability of the subject altogether. D. Brodale (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Half-Life universe topics edit

I added a request for these topics to be looked at - basically all of the links in Template:Half-Life from Playable characters down. It doesn't seem like proper procedure to request something as large as this in place of individual articles, but it needs confronting. Because there isn't an overriding page to post such a message on, its here instead. There is simply far too many of these articles for one person to deal with, of which they are almost entirely written from an in-universe style, make bad use of fair-use images, provide sparingly little real-world information and none of them establish any sense of notability. -- Sabre (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To test the water, I've put up appropriate cleanup and notability templates to the article Vortigaunt. I'm expecting a rather negative backlash from its fan-writers, but if no notability can be attested to this, I doubt any will can be for most of the rest of the articles I pointed to. -- Sabre (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's rather taxing for such a wide breadth of articles to be provided, and yes, requesting individual articles would have been slightly better. However, serious cleanup does need to be done, and practically every character from playable characters down can be merged into a List of Half-Life characters (with a corresponding List of Half-Life minor characters if necessary) per WP:FICT. If the aforementioned pages are created, and the relevant merge tags placed on the articles you want merged, then you can put the character lists for request, and this department can facilitate the mergers to the character lists. It would make the cleanup task much clearer and more streamlined. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, for the moment, I'd recommend starting with Vortigaunt (since its now been tagged) and seeing how it goes from there: hopefully attention there will make the necessary editors follow example with the other articles. I'll edit the request to reflect this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note so I don't forget—after the Half-Life articles have been cleaned and merged where needed, the category Category:First-person shooter creatures should be reassessed, as it appears to be primarily populated by Half-Life entries. Pagrashtak 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, all the creatures have been put together, so I guess the next thing to do is merge all the characters into a list: Adrian Shephard, Barney Calhoun, Arne Magnusson, and on- maybe the G-Man and Alyx can stand alone, (along with Gordon) but the rest should be dropped together. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I'm pretty much as done as I can be with Vortigaunt. I'm afraid I can't get much development information myself, due to my computer not liking the preview articles for HL1 and HL2 on IGN and GameSpot for some bizarre reason, and the fact that I don't own Raising the Bar. I imagine that those can be used to help finish that last section off, as I've sorted out the other sections. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with that last section. I'll deal with the locations next, due to the recent spate of AfD's leaving some redirected and others (still) in an utter mess, then I'll hit the characters. -- Sabre (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The King of Fighters edit

Does anyone disagree that it is probably time to start merging those? The few really big ones can be discussed in a new discussion if necessary, but the rest are certainly good to be merged. TTN (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's always someone who disagrees. I, however, do not disagree for the majority of them. Pagrashtak 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FIFA 08 edit

The FIFA 08 article previously consisted of a series of lists (leagues, teams, stadiums etc.) which I removed, noting some of the more important info in the existing prose. This has been disputed and there is currently an RfC on the talk page here for the return of the lists. The argument for inclusion seems to be that many other similar articles (FIFA 07, FIFA 06, FIFA Football 2005, FIFA Football 2004 et al) have these too. I can't really say any more there without repeating myself, so I'd appreciate some input from others if possible. Cheers, Miremare 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added these to the requests for cleanup, though I'm very pushed for time at the mo so won't be able to contribute much. Miremare 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Interview edit

I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from the Video Game Cleanup community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xenosaga edit

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup:

A majority of the material has been transwiki'd to U.M.N. Network. However, as decided on the U.M.N. Network page, the notice I put on a majority of these pages was considered badly done, and the U.M.N. network page is being deleted. As a result, I am unsure how to notify the reader that most of the links they click will be taken to a transwiki. They need to be cleaned up to an out of universe style. I'd love to do it myself, but I've never even played the game - I was trying to figure out about the game from the article itself, and found it to be a mess. Please help fix these pages. Especially remove links to the following redirected pages:

Xenosaga contains numerous in-game terms that make the game difficult to describe in an out of universe perspective. Originally, the terms were shown in a list; list of terms in Xenosaga. However, that page was deemed messy and was transwiki'd to U.M.N. Network. Then the page was "deleted" as a redirect to Xenosaga. The result is that these pages have multiple references to a list page. I've cleaned up the Xenosaga page personally, so there is no longer the confusing situation of clicking on an unknown term and being redirected back to the original Xenosaga page. However, the situation still needs to be cleaned up. Here is what I'd like to see from the cleanup effort:

  • Plot rewritten in an out-of-universe style.
  • Character pages redone.
  • An appropriate way for users to be informed that a majority of links they click will take them to a gaming wiki.
  • A cleanup of the transwiki to be done so that readers can understand the terms and be easily redirected back to wikipedia.

--Markozeta (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PoPoLoCrois edit

The PoPoLoCrois article currently focuses solely on the PSP game (which is a compilation of several earlier RPG's released only in Japan. I can't find the reference in the MoS but as I understand it, and article named PoPoLoCrois should focus on the entire series or on the original work, not a later compilation. Am I wrong? Would it be appropriate to propose a merge with the anime page and try to find information on the earlier games? Any advice would be much appreciated. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anyone? --Kraftlos (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of DSi / Wii games pages edit

Excuse me if I'm addressing this to the wrong portion of the WikiProject. I don't normally edit video-game related pages, but came across List of DSiWare games (PAL region) while patrolling new pages from the backlog. It struck me as unencyclopedic, since it's essentially a directory of games. Since the page also includes "point" costs and information on download availability, etc., I marked for speedy deletion under G11. Speedy deletion was declined, which in retrospect was the right thing.

During the ensuing {{hangon}} discussion, though, my attention was drawn to List of DSiWare games (North America), List of DSiWare games and applications, List of WiiWare games (North America), List of WiiWare games (PAL region), and List of WiiWare games. It strikes me that all of these pages are problematic in the same way.

These pages are all directories of games and applications available for DSi or Wii users. This seems contrary to WP:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Maybe the best way to handle this is merge all of the DSi-related lists into one list, and all of the Wii-related lists into another. This could then be edited to include specific encyclopedic information about the applications or games, rather than simply serving as a directory. Or, maybe contributors to this WikiProject have better suggestions. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as I'd been about to reply on the List of DSiWare games (PAL region) talk page, to be honest, lists like these strike me as no more unencyclopedia-like than List of Barbie films or List of board games; except for the fact that those lists are not laid out with tables and everything for a quick-reference guide to what came when, a list (of things it may be currently possible to buy) is a list is a list, and that does not inherently make it a shopping list IMO. If we got rid of the point values and when the Shops are updated (i think it's just the two newer DSiWare region-based articles that do that, though), we'd be all set.
It would, however, be nice if there were some kind of enforced site-wide standard for video game lists in general. they're all under the jurisdiction of this project, are they not? why do some use colors, some still use flags, some list point values and others don't, some list only the date of a game's first release, and some (or maybe it was just the one) list not only each release date individually but also have a special column for which region a game came out in first? If we have one set layout design with which to display game information, it would make general list upkeep (and the creation of new game lists in the future) much easier. -- Khisanth (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it's that "except for" that set off my spam detector. Note that List of Barbie films does not list prices or availability; it also doesn't describe whether the films are sold on PAL or NTSC video.
I fully support developing a standard format for all of these lists. I leave it to more knowledgeable editors to decide what information is important for such a format, but note that less knowledgeable users (like me) might regard a list of prices as "inherently a shopping list". Cnilep (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Cnilep, I'm not a vg article regular -- I got involved by coming across the CSD and declining it. However, I do have some experience with developing standards for some lists at WP:MLB, such as Chicago Cubs all-time roster and defending them in an AfD.
My two cents would be to combine all the DSiWare lists into one (region can be noted on each line entry if needed) and eliminate the points and block size info, which is only of interest to someone who is buying the game. Same for the WiiWare game lists. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]