Wikipedia talk:Gaming Collaboration of the week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussions:

Archive1

[edit] Removed Quake

Moved Quake to peer review section. Apologies, didn't realise peer review process existed this formally at first. For the record, here is what was posted here; Coyote-37 12:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quake

Nominated 27 July; needs 3 votes by 3 August (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

Coyote-37 11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

A well known and important game with a scrappy and hard to read article. The page is long but disorganised and full of unecessary detail. Let's tidy it up and make this a page a non-Quake fan can read!
Article size and development suggest it would fit better in Peer Review. ^wS;✉ 11:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aug. 1 - tie

Since two nominations have 11 votes, voting is extended 24 hours and the winner wont be selected until Aug. 2. If no one votes, Cel-shaded animation will win cause it was nominated first. Thunderbrand 01:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Well, we got 2 articles nominated that are basically the same thing. Is suggest removing the last one since it was just nominated today while the one that used to be called "Crate (video game)" be kept. Thunderbrand 16:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how they're the same. The first one only talks about crates, while the second one is much broader. Personally, I wouldn't vote for the first one but would (and have) for the second one. Jacoplane 16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well earlier, "Crate" was changed to "List of computer and video game cliches" and "Computer and video game cliches" was nominated, but Zxcvbnm changed it back. Why, I may never know. I guess a mistake or something. Thunderbrand 16:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. I suggest leaving it as is since Zxcvbnm has changed his vote, maybe remove the first one. Jacoplane 17:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed crate. It is too specific and not really encyclopedic on its own, IMO. One reason why I was hesitant to support (besides lack of possible references). K1Bond007 21:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Games Improvement Drive

I've tried out with a Gaming Improvement Drive (which I really think should be renamed... although I've renamed it way too many times I think o.o;). Basically, it's for non-stub gaming articles, to give them a better chance at improving to an FA status. -- A Link to the Past 07:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add link - Wikipedia:This week's computer and video games improvement drive. -- A Link to the Past 07:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Gaming Improvement Drive has not been very successful as of late. Last week's pick, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, had no major changes made to the article. I remember how R.C. Pro-Am's article had improved dramatically when it was nominated. What is going on? Scytheml 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work on nominations...

Lately, a lot of nominated articles have been rejected for GCOTW because of the extensive amount of work put into them before they reach nomination. Perhaps there should be a notice suggesting that people wait to work on articles until they reach GCOTW status? Because this could leave articles that don't manage to make it to collaboration without any help, perhaps there could also be a section devoted to "Recent Nominations" with the suggestion that people work on those as well, in order to continue helping WP. Just a thought. Kertrats 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I know about the problem. I nominated Comparison of handheld gaming consoles, and it is now the GCOTW, but there has been done exstensive work on it pre-GCOTW. So much so that there isn't that much work to be done on it anymore. Havok 18:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is true that recently, the issue you describe has been recurrent and that a notice to prevent this from happening would be of use. I have created an example template for the latter task, based on the {{GCOTW}} template, which upon inclusion produces the following message (you may find and edit it at User:GrumpyTroll/Template:GCOTW):

This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the Week

Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination. No substantial contribution should be made to proposed articles before a nominated item is picked (though copy editing is welcome).

In reality, such an announcement should be embedded in the nominated article itself and not in its talk page, for it to be observed. Grumpy Troll (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

I made some changes to the template. Havok 19:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(warning: rant = very yes) No. No no no no no. Don't ever discourage editing, EVER. It doesn't matter if the editing gets done before or after it becomes a GCOTW, because the same people who work on the winners are also the ones who worked on the nominees beforehand. Besides, if a nominee gets brought up from stub status, that means more good articles and fewer stubs! Why the hell would we want to discourage that? Nifboy 02:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If an article becomes too good for the GCOTW, how is that a bad thing? Means we can work on something else. Jacoplane 02:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. K1Bond007 02:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Me too. That's a cool thing about nominating, even if it doesn't make, the article you like still gets more attention. This keeping people from editing isn't a good idea. Cookiecaper 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you as well. There is no harm incurred in the development of nominations, only progression. (I shall remove the comments I made in reference to this subject.) Grumpy Troll (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Anonymous

Do we allow anonymous users to vote. Or do the voté have to be registered on WP with a username? Havok (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think they have to be registered. Any registered user is encouraged to vote so long as you abide by the policies of Wikipedia... That's what it says on the project page. Thunderbrand 16:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

They have to register. It's also preferable, but not in our guidelines that they should have at least a couple edits on various pages under their belt before voting too. I only make this last point because of the trouble in the past with sockpuppets. That's a big no-no. K1Bond007 20:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current Time and Date

I replaced {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} with {{Now}}. It says the exact same thing, with the exception of links to the date. I don't think this change was needed, but it at least makes use of the template. — Kjammer ⌂ 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeon Seige II

Dungeon Seige II is long overdue for pruneing. If it was nomininated on August 24, then it should've been removed on August 31 not September 2. Is there a reason the removal date is extended by two days? or was this a mathematical error on the nominator's part? Oh, well I am going to prune the GCOTW page, if there is a ligitimate reason that this nomination is not to be removed, then revert my edit. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The nominator, Mateusc, put the wrong date in. I never caught it, so I didn't know. Thunderbrand 12:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tie

Just as a heads up, the winner for this week won't be selected until tomorrow since there is a tie. If no one votes, Screenshot map will win. Thunderbrand 01:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborations not being worked on!

Is it just me or has Phantasy Star series stayed exactly the same, despite being last week's collaboration? HereToHelp 21:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, its not you. It didn't do very well, and actually decreased in size. Thunderbrand 22:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it didn't stay exactly the same. It changed slightly for the better imo. I don't believe I voted for it, but I went in and changed some of the grammar. Other people (oddly not you HereToHelp, despite your complaining here) edited it as well. --Syrthiss 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific games vs. Broad topics.

After the most recent post by the curious HereToHelp, I thought I'd make a comment. I've been quite silent in the last couple weeks on this project. That's largely because I had nothing worthwhile to contribute on the Phantasy Star Series, and even though I own the PS2 Rygar game, I had equally little that I could usefully contribute. I think this isn't specifically based on those games, but on all collaborations for specific game articles. Doing some number crunching, excluding Super Mario 64 because it was the first collaboration and bound to more contributions, game-specific articles (including Hyrule Castle) have averaged 24 article edits per week, while broader topics have averaged 35 article edits per week (please feel free to correct me if I averaged wrong, it's late). This is a significant difference, and I think it shows that we should, if not discourage, then try and steer away from choosing specific games as collaborations. They don't do as well and they exclude people from contributing if they don't have experience with the game. Instead, we should focus on broader topics that any gamer can help with. Does anyone else have any opinion on this? Kertrats 04:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah. The truth is, when you vote, you need to think clearly and objectively - "Can I contribute to this article?" - Don't vote because you know something about the subject or it deserves a better article than a stub or whatever. Vote based on whether you can actually contribute, to add something, and if you can't add anything to an article, don't support it. All of this has been covered a ton of times on here and there have been a number of different conclusions including reminders to the people that supported the article, and even as extreme as what you're proposing, but the only solution is what I just told you. And it really doesn't matter how much improvement there is, whether theres a little or a lot. Any improvement made during this collaboration is a good thing. Period. We'd certainly enjoy the latter, but consider that this is a free, ever expanding, ever improving encyclopedia. If it doesn't improve now, it'll improve later. It's really no big deal. Make the best of what you can now and continue on. K1Bond007 05:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Covered a ton of times? I checked the archive, and besides some very early posts on what types of articles could be nominated, the issue I brought up hadn't been talkd about (that I saw, again feel free to prove me wrong). My only point is that instead of voting only for what you can contribute to, also take into account how many other users can contribute. I like to see articles improved a lot on this project; should I be apologizing for suggesting how to (potentially) do that?. I wasn't being hostile at all, I don't think, and your relatively harsh response surprised me. Kertrats | Talk 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was in no way being harsh. I don't know why you think that. Maybe it came off wrongly to you or something, but it wasn't meant like that at all. The discussion about "No one is contributing" has been brought up before ("a ton", is an exageration, I'll grant you). Discouraging gaming related topics from being nominated won't improve this collaboration. I'm sorry that I disagree. K1Bond007 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's my mistake then, I misinterpreted your tone (easy to do with text, unless we make emoticons standard policy on talk pages, which I doubt we'll be doing any time soon). I realize that there've been discussions on lack of contributions, but I felt that my take on a possible increase in contributions was different enough from previous posts to make it worth bringing up. Kertrats | Talk 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game of the Year

WHAT DA HELL? what happen to the Game Of The Year Page? i was editing it!?><ino 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It didn't get enough votes in the time frame, so it was removed. Thunderbrand 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

and Game of the Year still exists from what I can tell. --Syrthiss 16:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FFL Pruned?

~~The date on Final Fantasy Legend's nomination was October 25. Why was it removed? Kertrats | Talk 01:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)~~Holy crap, I'm waaay too tired to be on Wikipedia. Sorry for being a moron. Kertrats | Talk 01:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

lol you're not a moron. easy mistake to make. :) --Syrthiss 02:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, why was DoS removed so quickly? I think it should apply to the week after it was nominated if it was nominated in the second half of the week. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It expired on October 20. When I pruned it, it was October 20. Thunderbrand 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I need some help.

I just began working on my first article, Hunter: the Reckoning: Redeemer. i need to know how to vote, can someone show me how?

Pece Kocovski 02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The article describes how to vote and how to nominate articles. - ApolloCreed 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry if i asked before i read the page. --Pece Kocovski 08:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

correct me i'm wrong, voting: you just put your name like"Pece Kocovski 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)" on the list like so: Support:

  1. Larsinio 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

right? --:Pece Kocovski 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining GCOTW

can you join Gaming Collaboration of the week? if so how? --Pece Kocovski 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Like everything on wikipedia, you just volunteer. go to WP:GCOTW and add your name ot the list of participants. u also might want to put something like {{user cvgproj}} on your User page. --Larsinio 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Larsinio is referring to {{User WPCVG}}, which identifies you as a member of WikiProject CVG. As for GCotW, there's no "joining", per se. Article nominations are open to anyone, and anyone is free to edit the chosen article, that's all there is to it. Pagra shtak 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

oh, because i saw a userbox that says, "this user is a member of gaming collaboration" thing, or something like that. or maybe i'm wrong: {{User WPCVG}} Pece Kocovski 06:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not impossible, users make all sorts of boxes for their own use, so someone might have created a box like that. There really is no such thing as a member of the GCotW, though, just a member of the WikiProject. Pagra shtak 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pagrashtak is correct. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template on Article or Talk page?

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent collaborations

I've been dissapointed in the last couple weeks on the two past collabs, seeing very low edits (with an embarrasing 1 edit on Alternate reality game). I hope this is just because its summer. Thunderbrand 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This may have to be a first, but maybe that nominee needs to be "re-nominated", what do you think? Also, maybe there aren't that many users that know of this "Gaming Collaboration of the week" thing, maybe if your were to send a message to any user with a user box that has anything to do with games, invite them here, we could get many more users on this, what do you think?

Pece Kocovski 05:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess it's just summer, really. But also, Giants is a relatively obscure title and ARG wasn't really a stub, but more of an article that needed massive clean-up (still does, actually). --SevereTireDamage 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Giants is an obscure title, and I think ARG was a bad choice since it was so large. Anyway, you can put on a user's talk page {{subst:GCOTWvoter}} to remind them, but I never do. I guess I will next time. Thunderbrand 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by "obscure"?

Pece Kocovski 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That the game is not known by many people, therefore it would not get as many edits as a more general game or article. Thunderbrand 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next week

I won't be here starting Saturday and most of next week, so someone will have to update the GCOTW. Here are the 2 main pages needed to do the major updating: Template:CurrentGCOTW and Template:Collab-gaming. Thunderbrand 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been away myself, but I'll try and take care of it. jaco♫plane 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one did anything, the collaboration is a few days behind. I was gonna go and change it, but would anyone mind leaving it alone until this upcoming Sunday? Thunderbrand 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I won't be here for a few days, so the collab. will need to be updated. I hope the same thing doesn't happen like last time. Thunderbrand 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated it! Yay me! Please check the byte size in /history though- not sure that it's right, I just looked at "view page info" in firefox. --PresN 18:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God Hand (video game)

Nominated August 11; needs 3 votes by August 18

Support:

busted1der

Comments:

Since Capcom has been doing well lately, especially since the release of Dead Rising, why not cover another Capcom developed game that looks very good, God Hand, the Beat-Em Up by the Viewtiful Joe team.

Err...I guess you meant to put this on the actual page, not the talk. Anyway, nominations for games that haven't been released are usually frowned upon. Thunderbrand 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moratorium on new releases

I'd like to make the suggestion that new release CVGs be out for a while before being nominated to CotW. My feeling is that a six-month cool-off period following the launch in its most major market (JPN or USA, typically) for game titles and minor consoles (V.Smile or Neo Geo Pocket would qualify as a minor console) and longer, nine to twelve months, for major console releases would allow for a better article. First, the novelty factor is worn off; with novelty comes a tendency to interject opinion rather than fact. Second, it will allow for better reporting on fan reception rather than simply reporting on pre- and early-launch insider information. -- Zytron 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that. 9 to 12 months seems way too long, and we shouldn't discourage nominations. Although I have to agree that recently released games don't tend to do that great. However, Star Fox Command did pretty good and it was made a GCOTW 1 month after it came out in North America. Thunderbrand 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micromanagement (computer gaming)

Has anyone else even looked at this article? There's been practically bugger all work done on it all week. Seriously, what was the point of voting it to be the GCOTW if no-ones even gonna touch it? It's gonna be one hell of an embarrassing before and after comparison! The Kinslayer 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've had bad nominees before. The main problem is that not enough people actually nominate articles, so sometimes there are no good candidates and we end up with something like this. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 19:21

[edit] GCOTW a big letdown this week

This week's Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week was Prima Games. It's been rather a poor show, to be honest, very little activity. Appreciate any help others can offer in improving what is currently a rather shabby article. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7EGaming_Collaboration_of_the_week_131a.html"

Category: GCOTW candidates