Wikipedia talk:Gaming Collaboration of the week/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome, everybody!

Welcome to the Gaming Collaboration of the week! Please post any questions/comments/concerns/etc. here; they should be answered promptly. I hope everyone likes what they see, but please feel free to change anything about the article that you want. The first nomination will immidiately be crowned the Gaming Collaboration of the week, so go out and find a good premiere article! Anyways, I look forward to collaborating with you all to make a better Wikipedia. --pie4all88 21:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, also, please spread the word of this collaboration to other users to help it grow. If you're lazy and would like to use a template for informing others of GCOTW on their talk page, you can use this with an edit summary of "Invitation to participate in Gaming Collaboration of the week.":  :)

The Gaming Collaboration of the week

Hey there [username]! I just wanted to drop you a message to inform you of the new Gaming Collaboration of the week that's just been set up. Gaming Collaboration of the week aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia's computer and video game articles through widespread cooperative editing, similar to the more generic Collaboration of the week. If you're interested, please stop by the page or its talk page. It would also be appriciated if you spread the word about Gaming Collaboration of the week's existence--I'm sure there are plenty of Wikipedians that would be glad to help out. Anyways, I look forward to collaborating with you to make a better Wikipedia. --[your name (use ~~~~)]

Ok, thanks for your help, everybody! Hopefully a gaming-related article will be nominated shortly. --pie4all88 22:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good idea

An excellent idea, in my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of other gamers on this encyclopedia, and harnessing their collective energy can certainly not be a bad thing. I'll see if I can scare up some nominees.

Can this be featured on Wikipedia:Announcements, perhaps? I'll take the liberty of mentioning it on the mailing list. --Slowking Man 23:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds great, Slowking Man--the more participants we can gather up, the better. --pie4all88
I take it GCOTW didn't have enough support to announce it on the Announcements page? Just curious as to what happened, especially since there are similar things like Wikipedia:Chinese wikipedians' notice board popping up. pie4all88 03:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A note on what GCOTW is...

Just a reminder that GCOTW is open to all gaming-related subjects. Thus, GCOTW generally covers both specific computer or video games and gaming concepts (such as WASD and First person shooters). I'll try to make that more clear in the article later on--this is just a friendly reminder to everyone. --pie4all88 01:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about gaming companies? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 16:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean developers and/or publishers like Accolade, Activision and Electronic Arts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yep, more towards the developers' side though. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 22:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say that gaming companies are applicable here too--I hadn't thought of that before. --pie4all88 04:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

5 votes per week?

I propose we lower the needed votes per week to 4 or even 3, as this CotW does not get as much traffic as the original CotW gets. --Conti|✉ 21:41, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea--if too many articles stay around for too long, we can always up the required number of votes later. I'd say that three votes per week is pretty good for now--what does everyone else think?. --pie4all88 04:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll change the needed votes to 4 per week for now; we can always change it later if it doesn't work out. pie4all88 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've decided to make the number of required votes equal to 3 for now--comments, questions, etc. can be placed below. pie4all88 20:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First GCOTW?

When does everyone think the first GCOTW should be chosen? Should we wait until Sunday when COTW is chosen, or give us something to work on until then? --pie4all88 04:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards making an article GCOTW now and keeping it the GCOTW until October 17--you know, to get everything off to a good start. What do you all say? --pie4all88 20:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. --Slowking Man 06:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, well Super Mario 64 is now the current GCOTW because it had the most votes. Note that it will stay so until October 17. Let's get GCOTW off to a good start by all improving on the article! --pie4all88 20:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quibble

Ack. Could I point out that this page's name is misleading? There are many, many kinds of gaming other than the kind on a screen. I came here thinking I could contribute, but I'm afraid I'd be useless on these topics. Isomorphic 13:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that until you pointed it out, since most of my video gamer friends also play or at least have knowledge of pen & paper RPGs and board games. ~ FriedMilk 14:17, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, what about broadening this CotW to all kind of games? Would that be a good idea? --Conti|✉ 15:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think there are some articles which have overlap in video and "real world" gaming, and which would benefit from having collaborators from both sides. For example, both kinds of RPGs share many features, but they also differ in ways that are important to describe and explain. ~ FriedMilk 16:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think RPG articles would fit fine in here. But what about board games? I think many who are very interested in board games don't play much computer games and vice versa. OTOH, we would get more people to be interested in this CotW, which is a good thing. I would vote for making this a Collaboration for any kind of game you can come up with.. Computer games, board games, Live RPG's, whatever. --Conti|✉ 16:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I forgot that the term "Gaming" is so generic when I made this page...I see your point, Isomorphic, but I don't want GCOTW to lose its focus--this page was created to draw in users with a particular interest, and I don't want GCOTW to lose some of those users...I don't know. If there's enough of a consensus, I guess we could change GCOTW to include role-playing, pen and paper, board games, etc.--I just think that it'll be too generic if we do. pie4all88 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the topic remains limited to electronic games, then the page name should be changed to eliminate such confusion (Electronic Gaming CoTW, perhaps?). I tend to agree with ContiE; many people like board/tabletop games without liking electronic games, and vice versa. Also, they're almost apples and oranges. For example, Milton Bradley is extremely relevant to board games, but has nothing to do with video gaming apart from electronic adaptations of its board games (which aren't even done by them--they just license the content to game developers). I think that this page should remain limited to electronic games. --Slowking Man 06:35, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Slowking Man. Change it to Electronic Gaming Collaboration of the week or Video Gaming or something like that. Cookiecaper 04:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing GCOTWs

I assume everyone wants new GCOTWs to be chosen on Sundays, like COTW? pie4all88 19:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. Why does SM64 last for two weeks, though? Just for good measure because it's the first one?
No, because it became the first GCOTW on Wednesday, I believe. I figured that it'd be better to have more time to complete the article rather than only having it be a GCOTW for a few days. pie4all88 20:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reflection

Well, I'd say Gaming Collaboration of the week is working out quite well...on Sunday, the next GCOTW will be chosen (right now two are tied for number of votes :S ) and Super Mario 64 will go into the /History section. We're off to a good start...there's been about 75 edits and the article has dramatically changed. There's only a few things left to put in--once we include those, maybe we could submit it to Featured Article candidates or something. I'll probably try to fine-tune the article here and there and contribute a bit more to it. There's also a relevant to-do list on Super Mario 64's talk page.

I think that with just a bit more polish, it would make an excellent featured candidate article. I've added some content myself. --Slowking Man 05:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
When do you think we should submit it? pie4all88 22:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It actually looks pretty darn good now. I see that Ta bi did some touching up on it. I'll try to come up with a better name for the "New capabilites" section, and then I think it's time to submit it. --Slowking Man 05:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like Neutrality's put it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. We should all stop by to support/object! pie4all88 20:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just don't forget about Crash Bandicoot! Merely 5 edits in 3 days so far (including the placement of the GCOTW banner). I played the first one for about 10 minutes before I swapped disks for Star Wars: Rebel Assault II. --Mrwojo 14:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten; I just haven't had time to work on it. I'll try to do a little now, and I'll probably do a major edit on Friday or Saturday. --Slowking Man 05:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Nor have I. I'm planning to take some screenshots tomorrow after I borrow the first three games from a friend. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 05:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Next GCOTW

Does anyone think they could update the GCOTW this week? I'm busy all day today and maybe tomorrow, so I won't get a chance to. If you want, we can do all the formalities (like the number of edits, etc.) later. Oh, and don't hesitate to change the GCOTW any other week either if I don't do it on Sunday (I was traveling so I wasn't able to)...Anyways, thanks! pie4all88 21:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Descent

Wanted to get some screenshots for Descent, and Descent Freespace, the articles are fairly complete, but lack screenshots. Would be nice if someone had a runnable copy to grab some screens. PPGMD

Newer Games

Do we want to spend time on the newer games, or should we let them sit for sometime after game release before we consider them needing work? Because the Fable page is very bare. PPGMD

I think it generally would be better to wait a bit, for example if we were to write an article on Counter-Strike or StarCraft the moment it hit the streets very important things such as the culture formed around them, mods and such would have been left out. But of course we mus'nt wait so long that everybody's forgetten them. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:38, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Removed/Pruned Game Titles

Admittedly this is the only Collab page I've noticed so maybe there's already a rule in place for this, but is there any period of "rest" time for rejects before they can be nominated again? After all, it'd be kinda lame to want to nominate, say, Quake II sometime in 2006, but not be able to because it's been on the "Rejects" list for two years. So, does such a period exist, and at what length? A month, maybe two or three, seems reasonable to me since we're not in any rush to revive rejected nominations... Shadow Hog 17:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that a bit too...how does two months sound? I'll change it on the /Removed page now; it can always be changed some later. --pie4all88 05:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

article size stats

I've been updating some of the statistics for Super Mario RPG, the last GCOTW, but I don't know how to get the size of the articles, so I haven't included them yet. How do you do that? Is there a way of getting the sizes (in bytes) within wikipedia? Thanks Silverfish 17:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's what I did:
  1. Copy the article wikitext
  2. Paste it into [1]'s form.
  3. Read the "Character Count" as bytes.
That should, more or less, give you an accurate byte count. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 20:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the stats now. Silverfish 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For WP:ACOTW we've been copying the text it into MIcrosoft Word. You can get a word count and a character (byte) count. We have been ignoring little things like special characters (æ) and images for the time being.--ZayZayEM 05:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For Super Mario 64 I just temporarily reverted it to how it was originally, searched for it to find the size, then reverted it back to it most recent one and found that size. Don't know if that makes any sense at all and it's probably not the most productive way of doing this :) --pie4all88 05:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

time for GCOTW changeover + tiebreaking

I've noticed that the gaming COTW doesn't have a particular time for the new Colloboration to become the current one. I think we would set it at 18:00 (UTC), which I think is the standard for other COTW's.

Also, I think we should have a golden goal system for tiebreaking, that is where the first article to get a vote after 18:00 on the Sunday becomes the COTW, if there is a tie at 18:00. This would mean that Age of Empires would break the tie now, with 15 votes to 14, rather than waiting for the deadline (18:00 today if you accept my first proposal).Silverfish 16:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --pie4all88 05:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm now making Age of Empires the new GCOTW, as the 24 hour tiebreaker period is over with it in the lead. Also, it doesn't look like much has happened to The Oregon Trail, so you might want to help improve that, if you're familiar with the game. Silverfish 00:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Games

Does this have to be only games? Can we do systems, too? Cookiecaper 22:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It says computer/video game related topics, so I would say systems would count too. Silverfish 01:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Andre (talk) 01:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Deferrement of Super Mario 64 DS?

Ok, it looks like Super Mario 64 DS is the new GOTW, however it is apparently only out on the 21st in the US, so people won't have much time to actually get the game (and the system to play it on) and play it, then write about it, before the week is up. I suggest we defer the week when Super Mario 64 DS is GCOTW for a period, say a week, so people will have had some time to actually play the game before they are supposed to start writing about it. There two main possibilities if we have a deferrement.

This would mean more people would have a change to add to it, as not much has been done.

  • We allow the current second place entry (Game over), to be the curren t GCOTW.

I favour the first, as we don't have a run-away second placer this week: (Game over has 4 votes against three 3's and a 1, whereas Super Smash Bros was a clear favourite, at 15 votes with the 2nd - 4th places getting 7 votes each.

Silverfish 02:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, ok, fair enough. Give SSB another week. Andre (talk) 02:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't support that. Wikipedia isn't an opinion place, it's not for user reviews. You don't need to play a game to know about it, just watch GameSpot's video review and a lot more could be added from that. Anyway, it's basically just Super Mario 64, so people can always fall back on that. Plus Monday is the 21st. That leaves six days for people who pick up SM64DS to play it. I really think it should go up this week, since it's the DS launch week and everyone will be excited about it. Cookiecaper 04:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Monday is the 22nd. Sunday was the 21st, and consequently, DS launch day. --Shadow Hog 04:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, that's even better for what I was saying. But dang I was thinking the wrong date all day yesterday. ;( Cookiecaper 13:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think there is information out there, so you can write somethings about the game without playing it, but I think we need to have some people who have played the game so they can see what is missed, where the emphasis is wrong, or if other sources get things wrong, to produce an authoratitive article. I don't think a week is neccesarily enough for people to get an in depth feel for the game, but people can at least have a chance to play the game until next monday, to get some idea of how the game works, before the clock starts ticking, whereas if we start the week today, then any playing of the game will be eating into editing time.
Another option occurs, though. Perhaps instead of deferring the week until next monday, we let Super Mario 64 DS be GCOTW now, but extend the period that it is GCOTW to make it 2 weeks. Then people have some more time to play the game if they want to before editing, but you want to start editing now if you want. Would that be a reasonable compromise? Silverfish 15:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. Andre (talk) 15:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, we need to decide on something. 2 weeks of SM64DS doesn't seem fair to me. Why don't we put it up on Wednesday and have it replaced next Friday, and then the next one will have a couple of extra days in the limelight. That's still a lot of time for this one, but I think it will work out. If there aren't any objections when I check this soon, I'll do it. Thanks ;) Cookiecaper 00:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.Silverfish 00:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what's the winner this week?

The current subject with the highest votes is Game over, with 5 votes, against 4 votes for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. However, Game over should, according to the system have been removed on December 1. The question is which game should be the winner? Silverfish 12:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there any problem if I add a vote for it now? I though I did voted for it (both MGS3 and Game Over), but with all internet disconections I lost the said edit (same with a few article edits). \ wolfenSilva / 18:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It looks like someone has declared Game over the winner. It seems it got the 6 votes it would have need to stay in, although a bit late, so with your vote that would have been 7, which seems like a fairly clear endorsement. Silverfish 20:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is are very few votes these days - out of six current candidates, there's a total of 10 votes - at this rate, the next winner will have six votes (again) at best, MGS3 has five votes (counting now with mine) and in few more than 24 hours it will expire. Any ideas to improve on this? \ wolfenSilva / 23:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Part of this is probably the selection of topics up for nomination, which isn't really something we can directly control, apart from keeping thinking of topics to nominate.
However, I've noticed that we seem to have a rather high turnover of articles, which may be part of this. 28 topics have been removed, and although that includes some no-one (or hardly anyone) was interested in, some, such as Street Fighter got as many as 7 votes, but failed to get the 9 votes needed to survive after 3 weeks. Perhaps we should reduce the votes needed, to 2 a week, say, so such articles can stay in the nominations longer. Also, do we neccesarily need to have targets set for every week, we could do it every two weeks, so you need 6 votes in 2 weeks, for example, which would allow more time for some articles to get noticed, as well as reducing the amount of work in updating voting targets.
I'm not sure if it would affect the amount of voting, although it would mean leaving some articles that have a respectable number of votes, but not quite enough to stay in the list. At some points it seems like the choice of GCOTW is more what happens to still be on the list, rather than the article that is more popular.Silverfish 12:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deus Ex also had 7 if i recall correctly (i nominated it so i might be a bit biased), i think the demands for entry should be reduced, seven people willing to work on the article should be enaugh. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:41, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
I agree, but I'd like to note that 7 votes doesn't mean 7 willing editors as the 16 votes for The Oregon Trail revealed (2 edits by users who voted for it). --Mrwojo 16:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pruning

I think the current pruning system is a bit silly, given how few participants there are. For example, a nomination might have five votes and thus get pruned after two weeks, leaving a newer nomination with perhaps two or three votes to get chosen. It would be better to prune nominations that haven't gotten three support votes in the first week, and then prune longer standing nominations only when the list gets too large. Fredrik | talk 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. But perhaps they should be pruned after one/two weeks with no votes at all, it's a perfectly valid sign if there will be more supporters. \ wolfenSilva / 19:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assistance in Computer and video games

I'd like to ask for assistance in bringing this set of articles up to a better standard. As this is not a specific game, it may or may not belong as a candidate?

Please see the following if you are interested:

--Slike 11:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Baah...

Is it just me, or has this page been killed dead? We've only got one candidate that ISN'T past its expiration date, with plenty that HAVE. Is ANYONE paying anymore attention to this page? --Shadow Hog 21:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had my computer on repairs for most of the week, and currently it's in progress of having everything installled again, so it will take a couple more days before I can make large colaborations again. \ wolfenSilva / 07:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone screwed up

Last week's article was '''[[Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater]]''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Super_Mario_64_DS&diff=8121288&oldid=7814860 see how it improved] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Super_Mario_64_DS&oldid=7813141 before]|[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Super_Mario_64_DS&oldid=8121288 after])

Metal Gear Solid /= Mario 64 DS - Vague | Rant 00:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It just hasn't been updated in a while. Andre (talk) 00:53, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update it!

Is this article going to be updated ever? It seems it has just been abandoned. Optichan 15:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Who usually takes care of it in the first place? Apparently we need to someone else, I guess. K1Bond007 21:46, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
I never played that game. I think this COTW needs a fresh restart. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:pie4all88 used to maintain the page, but he apparently stopped editing or something. I'd be willing to take over. What say we extend Paper Mario 2 until next Sunday, and nominate new articles? Also, Super Mario 64 is scheduled to be featured on the Main page tomorrow. --Slowking Man 22:15, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I used to do some work maintaining the page, particular the pruning, so I'll probably continue working on it, if people are going to be nominating entries. I haven't been pruning as there didn't seem to be much activity, and at I think at one point if I'd pruned things, there wouldn't be anything left. I've cleared the list now, and nominated a game, which should hopefully start the ball rolling. Silverfish 22:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately Wikipedia has been on the backburner for me recently (my Wikipediaholism seems to go in bursts). I'll try to be more active again, but I can't promise that I'll be able to manage it all anymore, so any help is appriciated. While I'm talking here, do you guys want to make the voting requirement to 2 votes per week? That might be more suitable. --pie4all88 05:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Various proposals

From working on this collaboration for a while, I've identified a number of issues. The following are my proposals for improving the project:

  1. Change the project name to "Electronic Gaming Collaboration of the week", in order to differentiate from other types of gaming.
  2. Implement a voting system using subpages, similar to what is used in VfD and other areas. This will create a more convenient recordkeeping system. Subpages would be linked from /History.
  3. Create a new template (perhaps Template:FormerGCOTW) to place on the Talk pages of articles that have been GCOTWs in the past. The template could link to the article's vote subpage using [[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/{{PAGENAME}}]].

Discuss, comment, criticize, improve, etc. --Slowking Man 07:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. I guess renaming it would make it more specific for others. -pie4all88 08:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

code

Heh, I kind of messed up the code after I nominated Red Faction. I can't get it to work, but can someone fix it? 'Cause the "to add a nomination, click "edit" at the right" isn't there! Thanks. Thunderbrand 14:57, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • done. wS 15:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Downtime question

Given the downtime earlier this week, do we give Difficulty level some more time, or move on to Gunstar Heroes (which has the most votes this week)? --Shadow Hog 18:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move on or Move on and extend difficulty level (thus having 2 at the same time). I'm curious what some of you guys would think about doing 2 per week anyway (perhaps chosen at different times in the week). Personally, I think it would be good for games/terminology/companies that some of us have no knowledge of, at least this way we'd have 2 chances to be able to collaborate on something. Any thoughts on this? K1Bond007 19:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should move on. However, the idea of having 2 per week is an interesting one. The question is whether we have enough articles being nominated. One idea, that avoids that issue is having each article get 2 weeks, chosen on subsequent sundays. So if we started now, Difficulty level and Gunstar Heroes would be joint Colloborations, and next sunday we pick a new article to replace Difficulty level and the following sunday one to replace Gunstar Heroes, and so on.

Another issue to consider is whether we want to defer removing articles where their deadline has passed. I think we should have a few days where we don't remove any articles (say until March 4), then we continue removing articles as normal. Silverfish 19:50, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think nominating articles would be much of a problem. Hopefully if we were picking articles more often (IMO Wednesday and Sunday) then more articles would get nominated. I would say Difficulty level should be extended till Wednesday then choose a new article. On Sunday (our regular time) a second article is selected. etc. That's what I was thinking. K1Bond007 01:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, regardless of whatnot, Gunstar Heroes is getting its win now... We can decide on doing the 2x thing later.
It'd help so much if Wikipedia wasn't moving slow as molasses, though. --Shadow Hog 16:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah you're probably right. Should we switch the day from Sunday to Wednesday to give a fair amount of time to Gunstar? K1Bond007 19:57, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. --Shadow Hog 22:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remove nominations

Shouldn't Baten Kaitos, Samus Aran, and Strike series be removed, since they didn't get the votes in the timeframe? I don't really know how to, since I'm not a member of this collaboration thing. *Thunderbrand 17:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion (see 1 section up) User:Silverfish said that they should stay till March 4. One more day can't hurt. K1Bond007 17:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that. Thunderbrand 18:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Removed Articles

Does everyone think the /Removed part of the gaming collaboration of the week is useful? I can see cataloging the winning submissions, but it might be overkill to catalog the failed submissions, especially since they can be renominated after a little while and this isn't the big Collaboration of the week. I think I would prune more if I didn't have to worry about cataloging everything. This whole aspect of GCOTW seems like rule creep anyways. What does everyone think? --pie4all88 05:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest only logging those with 3 votes or more wS 06:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's useful in a number of ways. Personally, I usually check the list when I am nominating, to see if the article has been nominated before, and if so, how well it did. If an article didn't do very well last time, I might not bother, but if it only just failed, then a re-nomination would be more worthwhile. Also, the list might be a good source for possible re-nominations, for similar reasons. Also, having the conversations preserved could be useful, as otherwise on re-nomination you might get into the same arguments again, and the conversation could convince someone not to re-nominate something. Finally, as someone who does a fair amount of pruning, I don't find that's it's much more effort to put the info on the Removed page, as it's mainly just a cut and paste job, with a few extras that can be added later. Silverfish 19:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think it's useful, however, I also believe the page should be purged from time to time. I don't think it's necessary to keep nominations in there from October of last year. 2 months should suffice. K1Bond007 20:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok then, we'll keep the /Removed page. I do support WolfenSilva and K1Bond007's ideas, though. Personally, I don't really use the /Removed page, so that's why I brought this up in the first place. --pie4all88 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't support WolfenSilva's proposal, as I think it's useful to know if an article did badly, and it also means we can keep track of recent nominations so they don't get re-nominated too soon after the original nominations. As for K1Bond007's idea, I think it could be good to restrict the articles on the main Removal page to 2 months, as those will probably be most useful, and in any case we are getting warnings about the size of the page. However, I think old nominations should be Archived, so people can see the old nominations if they want. Silverfish 11:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

gamepad..game controller?

isn't the article Gamepad basically the same as Game controller? Thunderbrand 17:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Game controller is currently on the GCOTW, so I suggest waiting until it leaves it (either winning, which seems very likely, or failing to achieve votes). Said that, IMHO, the info from gamepad should be merged with the game controller article and the namespace turned into a redirect until someone makes a decent article out of it. Joystick seems well developed as a standalone article, but it all depends of the final result in Game controller. wS 17:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought the same thing, but thats not really the case once you really begin to think about it. Currently, I'm thinking the article should be a general article on the different types of controllers (Gamepads, joysticks, paddle, etc) with links to specific articles where the device can be better explained. Gamepad could use a good overhaul too, with more information and possible listing of notable gamepads. K1Bond007 20:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration

I realise that some people don't help out on certain articles because they may not know the information well enough, have enough time, or something.. but why did 8 people vote for Sony Computer Entertainment, however, with two full days to go only one out of the eight actually contributed to the article? Truthfully, it's not really just this article, the number of edits and contributors is considerably down from last year and they've been getting worse from week to week. Kind of disheartening when you see the same people nominating new articles and signing/supporting others.

I mean no offense when I say this guys, but if you sign up to support an article you're giving off a signal to everyone else that you plan on actually contributing to this article, not just supporting it out of the kindness of your heart or to a lesser extent "because a proper page should be done". Like I said previously, I know some people can't contribute for possibly a number of reasons and thats quite alright, but if we're gonna have a collaboration then we need to actually start collaborating. As it is, we don't have such a terrific track record when the game or whatever doesn't involve Nintendo and/or Mario. Sorry. K1Bond007 03:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I will try to help out on future projects. Although a lot of the time, when I go to add something, someone else gets there before me. Thunderbrand 04:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see your point K1. I really need to start workning more on articles that I support. I usually at least try to go through the article and proofread everything before the GCOTW ends. Sometimes it's tough coming up with new information though. That's one of the reasons whey I think we should have an ongoing todo list on the respective talk page so people that want to help but don't know what to write about will be able to get a subject. --pie4all88 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ending sequence nomination... should be pruned?

I see that Ending Sequence currently has 6 total votes, one of which was retracted. Should it be pruned? Y0u 06:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Technically, yes I believe so. If not then it's obviously the next GCOTW, which IMHO poses a problem for us as I initially stated in the comment section. I don't think Outro (computer gaming) is a great name, but it's exactly the article we want to make. Should we move Outro there now? Is there a better name than Ending sequence? I'm not too sure thats a proper name either since it's really disambiguous for all media; TV, film, games etc. K1Bond007 06:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Ending sequence (video game), End sequence (video game), or Ending sequence (computer gaming). Otherwise I agree that the Ending sequence article should include other media as well: is that such a bad idea? Jacoplane 19:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow unless someone disagrees between now and then I'll be pruning end sequence (and any others that qualify) and making Crazy Taxi the next GCotW. Please respond if you disagree. I'll hopefully be moving the discussion about the naming of the article to the Outro talk page K1Bond007 19:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Still GCOTW?

Why is Game controller still the GCOTW? A new one should have been picked yesterday. Thunderbrand 06:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would have changed it unfortunately we never got a consensus from the question posted above. Was Ending Sequence supposed to be pruned and if not how do we go about naming Ending Sequence - it's essentially the same article as Outro, however, IMHO we can't name it "Ending Sequence" because an ending sequence is not specific to computer and video games. At this point we might as well talk this out and make the change come Sunday, our usual time. K1Bond007 06:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Sport_and_games

I added the current GCOTW template to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Sport_and_games. Also I changed the font of the template from 150% to 120%. In the old version the lines were touching, which looked messy to me. Jacoplane 01:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? That is about sports and board games, not video games. Thunderbrand 01:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well it's also about video games. If you look in the Did you know section, for example, it mentions DONKEY.BAS, a computer game cowritten by Bill Gates. Isn't 'game' a superset of 'video game' ? Jacoplane 02:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You do have a point though in that it does seem to be a lot more focused on sports and board games. Maybe we should start thinking about creating Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games (I put it in the requested wikiportals) using the Template:Wikiportal. Do people think this would work? Jacoplane 08:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK I kind of went crazy and made a test version of the portal. Feedback? Jacoplane 09:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...seems pretty cool. I like it. Thunderbrand 02:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tie?

What do we do in the event of a tie? Currently we have two articles with 5 votes each. Do we go with the one that was nominated first? K1Bond007 19:05, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it says voting will be extended for another 24 hours, and if no one votes, then Rouge Squadron will win. Thunderbrand 19:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I failed to read. K1Bond007 19:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

GCOTW templates

You'll probably notice that the GCOTW template has been changed a bit. I was adding a GCOTW candidate category like other similar COTW Wikiprojects and I decided while I was at it to change the style to something similar to those. (ex. Template:COTW). Anyway, we can fiddle with it or go back to the previous version of the style, it doesn't matter to me. K1Bond007 05:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I kind of liked the old ones, but since these are bigger, I guess they draw more attention to the articles. Thunderbrand 06:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
It'll grow on you :) Seriously, the old ones were almost too thin and as you stated didn't draw much attention. I pretty much used Template:Current as the style, rather than what I really said above. I also think it looks better when it doesn't span the whole article horizontally, but thats just my opinion. As previously stated, we can fiddle with it. K1Bond007 06:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the background colors for the GCOTW to something other than pink (because I'm sure we all loved that color) and to something to make it stand out more. If anyone has a problem with this or would prefer another color, let me know so we can discuss this out. K1Bond007 04:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fake votes

It seems that someone is adding other people's signatures to the nomination for Operation Desert Storm. They're coming from an anon IP, and included my "vote", which I did NOT add and promptly moved. (Check the page history, my vote does not link to my user page.) You 00:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the votes, please restore them if they are legit. You 00:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed this. See also User:Clg897 contributions. K1Bond007 00:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I can confirm that the one in my name was also not legit, so I think you did the right thing to remove them all. Thanks. --jet57 (u∴t) 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 08:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that we have a problem with someone using sock puppets to vote in this collaboration. It is possible, I suppose, that this is not the case, but in the past few weeks a number of votes have been cast by User:KangarooMan and Flatluigi, but have no contributions to anything else. Given the problems in the past, see Clg897 as well as a few anonymous IPs, I feel this is an issue that must be addressed. Please note to whomever is doing this that you may be possibly banned for using sock puppets to vote in surveys and polls (Collaborations of the week falls under this) please see Prohibited uses of sock puppets. K1Bond007 July 7, 2005 22:05 (UTC)

  • A suggestion- perhaps set a minimum number of edits (something low like 10-20 so newbies can join this COTW) in articles (not things like the Sandbox for votes to count? You (Talk) July 7, 2005 22:12 (UTC)

O Oh, sorry. I didn't know that I might've caused some problems with voting without other contributions. Very sorry. I'm not sure whether I should add back my votes or not, though. Flatluigi 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Extra day?

I guess Hyrule Castle should be given an extra day for the GCOTW, since pretty much all of Monday no one could edit, right? Thunderbrand June 28, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

That's ok for me. Let's see hoe the collaboration goes. If nobody's working on it we should change on sunday, otherwise give it the extra day. Jacoplane 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

But that would mess the schedule up! Just leave it.--Zxcvbnm 28 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

What schedule? We've been switching and doing this all the time. GCOTW has been on a Saturday, a Sunday, a Wednesday, a Friday.. etc etc. because of delays and stuff it just happens to be on Monday right now.
I am of the opinion that we should make the decision come next Monday. If theres a lot of activity on the page for the day before then let it have another day. If there isn't.. then move on. K1Bond007 June 28, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
Same. Besides, we can live with having two GCOTW for one day. wS 28 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)
I agree with K1Bond007. Lets wait till the day gets closer. if its still actively being contributed to, then give it the extra day.--ZeWrestler 29 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Well, it's only been edited 3 times today and they were all very minor edits, so i'll go and change it to reflect the new GCotW. Thunderbrand July 4, 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Mario improvement drive

Mario is a candidate for next week's improvement drive. Would be nice to have another CVG article becoming a featured article on wikipedia. Jacoplane 29 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Edit history

This has been bothering me for a while. Sometimes when I update the stats for the previous winners, I am unsure whether to count all of the edits made when the article was GCotW. For example: do edits that revert a previous edit count? Do you count the edit that just added and removed the GCotW tag? I'll pick an easy one. Would Jak and Daxter have 7 edits or 5 edits? Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

I'd say don't count reversions or tag removal, as those aren't really "improving" the article but merely making it stay much the way it is. Master Thief GarrettTalk 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
Just count them all. Don't make it harder on yourself by attempting to determine what counts as a notable edit. It's not really worth it. K1Bond007 July 7, 2005 01:53 (UTC)


GCOTW Template

Hi! I was wondering where I can find the templte text that creates the {{CurrentGCOTW}} box? I'd like to be able to edit the size of it for the new user page I am working on for myself, but I don't know where its located. Any help to point me in the right direction would be appreciated! Thanks --Naha|(talk) July 9, 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Goto Template:CurrentGCOTW - I hope you don't mean edit this one though. If it has to do with sizing of the template on your user page, you can manipulate it using HTML on your user page. K1Bond007 July 9, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
Yes I just want to manipulate the size on my user page is all, and I didn't know how to find the code behind the template ..thanks, thats just what I was looking for! --Naha|(talk) July 9, 2005 05:32 (UTC)

RollerCoaster Tycoon

I remember nominating RollerCoaster Tycoon. Did it ever get picked for gaming collaboration of the week? Please discuss on my talk page. Thanks. • Thorpe • 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

People voting but not contributing

I've noticed that there seem to be a lot more people voting in the GCOTW lately, but the number of contributors hasn't really seemed to increase much. Is the idea that anyone can vote, or only people who intend to contribute? With the Weekly Improvement drive, the Template:AIDvoter gets put on every user's talk page that voted. I think we should do something similar to remind people that they voted. What other ways could we increase participation? There's a similar thread @ Improvement drive talk.. Jacoplane 00:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I copied the template mentioned above here: Template:GCOTWvoter. Thoughts? Jacoplane 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, I was going to bring this up sooner or later. This is a trend I've been seeing the last few weeks. It seems a lot of people vote en masse on something, and only half actually edit the article. If a nominated article gets 12 votes, I'm expecting over 50+ edits to that article, but recently a few winners got 12 votes and the edit count usually comes out around 25-30 edits. That's why I choose what I vote for carefully. If I know I can add something worthwile to the article, I vote, and if I can't, I don't. I think this issue was raised a while ago, but I'm not sure. I think your template is a great idea and should encourage people to contribute to the GCOTW winner. Thunderbrand 01:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
My main focus since I joined wikipeda has been contributing to gaming articles, and it still is. While I do a lot of work on gaming articles, it isn't always, and more not than often ..on the collaboration of the week nominees, but I still browse the nominees and vote for the ones I think have improved the most and have the best content etc. Is this wrong of me? --Naha|(talk) 02:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well, not really. But from what I understand, when someone votes on a nominee, I would expect them to contribute in someway if that article wins. But just voting becuase it has the best content really isn't right to me. For example, I remeber voting for F-Zero because when I saw it, I was like "Wow. It's a classic SNES game and that small an article?" So I voted and other people saw the article and probably said the same thing. But when it won, it didn't do nearly as well as I thought it would. In my mind, it pretty much failed. But I'm not saying that the people who contributed didn't try. Thunderbrand 02:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'll admit it's a problem that I've been worrying about, though less because it's a Wikipedia-wide problem and moreso that it's a personal thing... It's just that when it comes to really, really giant edits to GCOTWs, I usually wind up thinking "but isn't what we have here enough?...", and move on to just a few minor edits instead.
Oh, and I'm really lazy. Can't forget that. --Shadow Hog 03:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean I vote for a particular article "because it has the best conent," but rather, because its content has either improved the most, or improved significantly since it was nominated, or over the last few days/weeks. To me that seemed like a pretty good reason to vote /shrug. Naha|(talk) 03:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

People rarely vote for something because they know a whole lot about it. I usually vote for nominees with embarassingly scant articles; that is, the nominee that most deserves to be improved. I agree that people who support (including myself) should do more and research and things, but I don't think this is a big deal. The template's a good idea though. Cookiecaper 03:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think the template is a good idea. I don't believe it would really improve anything in our situation and it would be a major waste of time to whomever takes on the job of posting it on the user's discussion pages. We shouldn't have to be parents here and make sure all the children are attending school, so to speak. Instead there should just be more emphasis on why someone should support an article. I've long thought that people were just doing so because "hey that's a good game it deserves a great article" so they vote, but even at the time they have no intention of actually adding content to that article. People should support for what they're willing to actually contribute to and I'm not talking about minor edits or whatnot. I'm talking about actually adding content. I would hope the people that didn't support the article would do minor edits and check for grammar and etc. even though they didn't support it. If I see 20-30 edits (on an article not about Mario), I consider that pretty good given our track record. The problem we really face is the problem Wikipedia faces. K1Bond007 05:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just posted it to the talk pages of all the people that voted for Super Mario World. Fine, it was a waste of time but didn't take more than three minutes copy/pasting. However, I agree that having to prune, update all the different templates and do this might be annoying. I think it's just a reminder to people that they voted. But let's just say this is an optional template. I think we should clarify on the page that people should only vote if they tend to contribute, as this isn't mentioned at all on the project page right now. Just saying "Any registered user can nominate an article and can vote for any number of the nominated articles" is rather inviting to make casual votes Jacoplane 09:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You can probably configure a robot to post the template. This would save time and all that. Also, some people vote and then forget. I don't think it's such a bad idea to notify them that the article they supported was selected, even if it won't get them to add droves of content. Not that I have any room to talk. Cookiecaper 23:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't think they'd let you use a bot for that reason - especially for only a handful of people. K1Bond007 01:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)