Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sega/Assessment/Archive

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

Hi

What do we do with this page? it's just a copy of the Video Game Projects, so it need a compleat re edit, and the assesments of the articles need to be sorted out! (we need more members, who know what to do!)  Doktor  Wilhelm  00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not anymore, it's not!

I've completely remade the page and am spearheading the department myself. Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems

There is a problem with: "This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles related to Sega and The Sega Project.", Sega are a company that doesn't just produce Video Games (and Consoles), they also have their logo on a lot of japanese toys (though I'm looking for any reference to this on wikipedia, and can't seem to find any?) and there are many references to Sega trademarks in other articles:

"a project to better organize information in articles related to Sega. Also, please note that "game" articles are only included in this WikiProject if they are published by Sega (1st and 2nd party.), or include Sega characters."

There is an article (Sonic Hedgehog) which I personally believe shows that Sega (and Sonic the Hegehog) are very much ingrained in modern pop and social culture! And something else that needs doing [[Category:Sega_games]] (or any Subcategories there of) and [[Category:Sega stubs]] need to be added to the main pages of any relevent artcles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the problem with that statement, and yes, it does need to be tweaked. However, I'm reluctant to change it much without evidence. Like that Sonic Hedgehog protein. Yes, you can make the assumption, but there needs to be evidence before we can go linking it to the project. The assessment department is a work in progress, and I know I can't make it work by myself, so if you can tweak it, feel free. Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What denotes the importance?

Per secton subject: Are we doing this from the point of view of sega? or cultural impact, or as fans of the subject? I'm finding it hard to subjectivly rate the importance of the articles, and as for class, a few articles I am personally involved in and believe I am not the best person to rate them? (Sorry, just thinking out loud, looking for imput)  Doktor  Wilhelm  00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to say probably on the basis of impact. Importance is always tricky to figure out depending on the project, but that's the angle I've been taking on it with my assessments (and I've done quite a few of them). Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess impact would be a good starting point, though would it be based on the starting impact or the long term? (Sorry, I'm just thinking too much)  Doktor  Wilhelm  05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and say long-term. That may be looking in to it just a little much, as you said, but I just think it makes more sense to organize it like this. Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the Statistics

Why don't we have a showing for anything classed GA and above? I understand that there's really nothing classed A-class or FA-class yet, but Sonic the Hedgehog (character) is a Good Article by the standards of Wikipedia, and passed the good article assessment. I changed the Sega Project tag a few days ago to mark it as GA in our class (since we really don't have an assessment system for that set up yet, and since the article is an Everyday Life Good Article, I figured this would be all right) but it doesn't show up anywhere. We need to be able to keep up with higher-classed articles for this project to keep up. Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

it seems to be showing up now, also the bot has updated all the Statistics connected to the categories and such!  Doktor  Wilhelm  05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for all your work with the Statistics by the way, Doktor Wilhelm. Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A Request

To whoever reads this, I'd like someone to assess the Crush 40 article that is listed at the Requested Assessments at the bottom of the page. Normally, I usually do most of the assessing on articles, but I can't assess this because I have become a major contributor to the article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment, Doktor Wilhelm. I don't think the class can go any higher without more citations, so we'll save any discussion on that for later. Also, the importance is appropriate, I think. Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to mention my assesment! I seen the article awhile ago, and it really has been improved!Incase anyone is interested my assesment was short: Class=B (we'll have to discuss anything higher) Importance=Mid (Hesitant to give Higher, as they arn't a Sega product, will discuss!). I think that pretty soon we'll have to start a full discussion on the Class and Importance scales, maybe people could nominate a artilce to be either Class A or Importance High-or-Top within the project, that way we could vote for a concensus on it (which will work better once we have more full time members)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw you've seen the article before, Doktor Wilkhelm. You said Radman622 was on an "angry power trip", and I remember that. He then put it up for deletion, and that's when I stepped in to fix it, and I have been for about two months. That's actually why I became a Wikipedia editor, to save that article. Radman622 was willing to help me after I convinced him to, and we went through two assessments from WikiProject Video games (wasn't happy with them, though). Anyway, it really needs more sources, but I think with more sourced info, it could be nominated for a Good Article. Remember the Class A assessment requirements: two editors need to agree. Note to everyone while I'm on the subject, you can put the article you think should be Class A under the new requests, and put up you're proposing A-class. If you see one marked with one proposition and decide also it should be A-class, then you can change the rank. You just can't do it without two reviewer's agreement. You don't need Good Article status to do it, though, just two reviews. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shining series

We have an article called "Shining series" in our unassessed articles. While it appears to be a start-class article, there is a list that is very dominating in the page, and I'm wondering if this qualifies it as List-class over a standard ranking. Please give me some feedback on what you think. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shining (Series) is defiantly a start! Gaogier Chat! 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC), all the shining series games don't have our tag.


This is a good question, as several (series) articles are just list of the main articles... Though the article in question: I'd say that it's a stub, per: The article is a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level.  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So we agree that it's not a list. I'll assess it to what I believe is right then. I think it looks start to me, but i'll take a second look then assess it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Scale - Article progress grading scheme.

The examples in the Article progress grading scheme box needs to be populated with Sega articles, to show the scale of articles within the scope of the project, though we have no FL Class Sega articles or A Class Sega articles, maybe we should see about getting a list up to featured and moving some B-Class articles up the scale?  Doktor  Wilhelm  09:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to pick a B-class to move up, I seriously recommend Sega. How can that article be the article we focus around and yet it's only B-Class? We as a project should really take into working on that article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How many have we missed?

I'd like everyone to keep looking for Sega games and other related material and place the template for our project on it. I turned up about 10 Sonic games this morning without them. You don't even have to assess them; leave that to me if you're not going to. Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's 1,000's of Sega related articles, I keep finding them slowly (I'm going to go through all the sega categorys over the weekend, find anything not tagged, and any categorys not tagged either), there's so much about Sega (more than just games and consoles, as you know), it'll be good once we've find it all, and can keep track of it!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Slowdown

It's been kind of slow around here at the Assessment Department. No new articles to assess, no reassessments to do, no nothing. I've kept myself relatively busy digging up Sega articles and placing our tags on it, but there hasn't been much work around here, and everything has come to a standstill. I need everyone to keep turning up Sega articles or improving them and sending in requests for reassessment, lest the Assessment Department end up doing nothing! Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged about 400 articles, I'll assess as many of them as I can in the next few days. (we need more active members)  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to help you, Doktor Wilhelm, I'll be on sabbatical from Wikipedia over the next few days due to obligations to fulfill, so you'll be on your own for awhile. The Assessment Department's been my own one man show, it seems, but I'm glad there's another editor interested in keeping it up for a while. I think you can manage the department in my absence, and I'm counting on you to assess fairly when you do. Good luck, and if the load of unassessed articles is too much, I'll be back in a few days to give you a hand. Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To help you out before my sabbatical, I've made an importance chart. It'll be up in about a minute. Tell me what you think! Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems rather good to me! I'll try and be as fair in my assesment as I can be, and if I find anything that needs discussion I'll rate it as best as I can, and bring it here.  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement and the wishes of luck. If no one else can help you out, just save it here, and I'll get back to it when I'm back in a few days. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Doktor Wilhelm, if you come upon any articles that you have questions about in assessments, file them under "New Requests" on the Assessment Department page. If you think there should be an A-class article, then propose it there. If the number gets too high or you have questions about importance, then put them here. Sound good? Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'm just finding that mosly the articles are Stubs with low importance at the moment, something may need to be done about these articles, to build them up (though a lot of them are old games).  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Our First FA

I thought I'd bumble around the unassessed articles while I was here before I left for sabbatical and I found a featured article among all the unassessed ones! It's F-Zero GX, developed by a department of Sega, and while it is low importance, it's our first FA! Thanks to whoever turned up this article! Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I was just adding them, using AWB so I didn't even know, I'm going to begin assessing them all tonight, see what I can turn up (I'm also going to be adding/finding category tags where needed and adding/finding templates). Good luck with the sabbatical!  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cosmo (Sonic the Hedgehog)

I'm not a member of the Sega project but I was wondering shouldn't the Cosmo article be within your scope.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Thank you, I have listed it as: Start Class - No Refernces, needs work! Low Importance - Original character from an Animated series based on Sonic Adventure, no basis withing acutal Saga series (ie: not based on a chracter created by Sega or Featured in anything else Sega related)! You are always welcome to join The Sega Project, and even if you do not wish to join you may add the {{segaproject}} tag to the top of any talkpages of articles you believe are within our scope!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposition

There's an article I'd like to propose for A-Class, and since this is the first one we've had, I thought I would put it here so that way people better understand the nomination for A-class system. An article does not have to be a good article or a featured article, but two assessors have to agree with it. I am proposing that this particular article become A-Class. The article is Sega Mega Drive. I'll put this nomination under our new requests, as well. Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides needing more references in places, the article seems good, easy (and interesting) to read: "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points." seems to sum it up rather well! I agree with making it our first A-Class article!  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for Good Article status just for the hell of it, since it is of a decent quality. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
it was put down to a B-Class by User:Mika1h, who stated "This isn't A-class, articles has numerous cleanup and citation tags on it".  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Numerous? Try one tag for lists. Just a couple lists need to be rewritten into prose. "Numerous tags" indeed. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of assessment!

I've finished assessing pretty much all of our unassessed articles, making about 300 edits or so (literally) in the process. Keep turning stuff up, though, we're still trying to organize everything related to Sega. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sega Mega Drive

You accuse me of vandalizing, because I changed the rating to B-class. I should be the one accusing, you guys rated an article with multiple citation tags A-class!. Also I removed Sega banner from platform game article, because article has minimal Sega coverage. Talk pages should avoid redundant tagging. --Mika1h (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sega Mega Drive article is A-Class within the Sega WikiProject, and yes, something may have minimal Sega content, but it's still Sega content!  Doktor  Wilhelm  11:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's tag History of video games with Sega banner then, it has Sega content. --Mika1h (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
First off, Mika1h, there's only the one tag on Sega Mega Drive, and it's for the lists, which is minor and can be addressed. But that's not the point. Two assessors already named it an A-class article, by the process we have here in this project. And the purpose of this project is to organize ALL Wikipedia articles with content relating to Sega. That's the whole point. So yes, you are vandalizing this project's tags, whether that was your intent or not. It's not like one person such as myself or Doktor Wilhelm just changed everything to do things, we follow processes similar to the ones of Wikiproject Video Games. We also stick to them pretty well. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to start tinkering with the lists for that article in my sandbox and see what I can do to fix that. Anyone who reads this is free to help me tinker with it at User:Redphoenix526/Sandbox. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's 13 citation tags on the Mega Drive article. That is not acceptable on an A-class article and it's definitely not in line with Video Games Project's assessment. You are the one vandalizing the article because you are going against the consensus of what A-class article is. --Mika1h (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"not in line with Video Games Project's assessment"? Urm, the is The Sega Projecet's assessment, our "consensus of what A-class article is", is seperate from that of the Video Game Projects, otherwiae, what point is there in having a seperate project? And are we adding History of video games? I think we should, as it's relevent to Sega!  Doktor  Wilhelm  11:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What Redphoenix said: "we follow processes similar to the ones of Wikiproject Video Games. We also stick to them pretty well." --Mika1h (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But you are miss quoting him! That quote is in reference to why (and how) we decided that the article was A-Class within the Sega Project!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mika1h, you have misquoted me. Doktor Wilhelm has quoted me correctly. While our project is a descendent of Wikiproject Video Games, we're not that project. And excuse me, but am I not wrong in saying that A-Class articles are not perfected yet? Of course there's some issues. There's always issues with any article not assessed as FA-class. But we followed the procedure set forth here, two assessors agreed that the article was high-calibur enough and well sourced enough to name it A-Class in this project, by the standards of WP:SEGA/A, see the Quality Scale for more information. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what we'll do. Mika1h, in order to verify your claims, we shall have another assessor take another look at the article. As the only real full-time assessors here are myself and Doktor Wilhelm (though we do have the occasional passerby), I'd like to ask Doktor Wilhelm to take another look at the article, and if he deems it is not A-Class by our standards, then he will change the tags. If he deems it is still A-Class, he will tell me, in which case I will take another look and reach a verdict. You will be notified here of the results. In the meantime, I will take another look into your tags and correct as many of them as I can (if the tags you refer to are the {{fact}} tags, then I will challenge the unsourced material after looking for a few sources and have it removed from the article). You are free to help point out certain things to Doktor Wilhelm or myself for the assessments or to improve the article yourself. Does this suit you? Redphoenix526 (Talk) 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Mika1h (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I already took care of the {{fact}} tags by either removing the uncited content or finding references for the formerly uncited material. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Former Help Request

Do FFF's cutscenes from Youtube count as legitimate sources? Red Phoenix (Talk) 04:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)/

Urm... technically they are copyrighted content, so uploading them to YouTube is breaking copyrights, is it not (I could be wrong here)? Hence, WP:COPYRIGHTS states that if the linked to page violates copyright, don't link to it as it sheds bad light on Wikipedia. You might want to take a look at WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHTS and WP:RS though as well. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I get rid of them or would you like to take a look at them yourself incase it isn't breaking copyright. Just look at the ones that say "Cutsecene from."Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of those videos have been there since late 2006, so if they were copyright wouldn't they have been deleted from youtube by now.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Someone has to flag the video for it to be examined for copyright, and many users (like myself) don't do that so we can see materials that are sometimes copyrighted on YouTube. Hence the issue with citing them on Youtube. Red Phoenix (Talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But we have images from Sonic games which have copyright issues. If I put one of those special hidden messages next to the references that says something like. "Copyright owned by Sega and Sonic Team" then would that resolve the matter.Fairfieldfencer (Talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With images, it depends on whether the image qualifies as fair use, and even so, reducing the number of fair use images in an article is important. If the images have fair use rationale problems, they should be fixed immediately. And even if you can't use the YouTube videos, FFF, you can still cite the cutscenes without the videos as long as you specify what game, about where it is in the game, and the year of the game and anything else you find relevant. References don't have to be online to be legitimate, you know. I've seen it done successfully before. Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I still allowed to use youtube videos as references.Fairfieldfencer (Talk) 10:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't know how to call this one. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Super Smash Bros. Brawl: I added this article to our project a while back, because of it's use of Sonic (though now it's known to have Green Hill Zone as a stage, loads of Sonic related Music and a few cameos from related chracters), at the moment to article is rated a B on our class scale, and low on our importance! I'm wondering what views there are of upgrading the class to an A (though they are going after a GA or FA, so it may not matter in a few days).  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason that Super Smash Bros. Brawl didn't make GA the first time was because of edit warring. Since they are going after a ranking, let's wait a few days and see what comes up first. Let's try to avoid another dispute like the one with Mika1h above. I may even do the GA assessment if I get bored because I haven't had any part in editing that article. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sega voice actors

I was wondering, do you think the Sega voice actors should be within our scope.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already have Sega related musicians/bands, so Voice actors seems to be the next step, though I'm not sure about having voice actors if they did the voice for a single line/word by a chracter? if we limit it to Sega Video Game Main Chracters and important chracters within series (by this I more of less mean, if the chracter they portray is within our scope, then they should be? Maybe?), I don't think all 3rd party chracters, for example the character created for Animé and cartoons that arn't owned by sega, should count (but then the Character design for sonic x was done by Soinc Team, I think, so does that make all voice actors of chracters within that count as being within our scope?)... Ack, my head hurts...  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we want the video game cast and most of the Sonic X cast.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I mean, is if the character is in our scope, the voice actor should be aswell! (everything else is just me thinking too much)  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of who I think should be noted.

Ryan Drummond, Corey Bringas, William Corkery, Michael McGaharn, Jennifer Douillard, Sarah Wulfeck, David Humphrey, Lani Minella, Jon St. John, Deem Bristow, Steve Broadie, Jason Anthony Griffith, Amy Palant, Dan Green, Lisa Ortiz, Rebecca Handler, Bella Hudson, Pete Capella, Kathleen Delaney, Andrew Rannells, Maddie Blaustein, Mike Pollock, Jimmy Zoppi, David Wills, And last but not least Amy Birnbaum, (I'll leave the japanese cast to someone else, oh and if there's someone who's name you don't know but would like to choose I suggest you go here. List of voice actors in Sonic the Hedgehog).Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The point of this project is to organize all Sega-related articles, and these articles are related to Sega. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rated them all as stub class low importance.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl revisited

Hey guys. Remember how I delayed the assessment of this article because they were pursuing a ranking? I'm the reviewer for the article, since I have never contributed to it. If I pass the article (which I've placed it on hold for now), we can reopen the discussion on a ranking. Red Phoenix (Talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I've passed it: it's a GA now. We can discuss anything further here if you want. Red Phoenix (Talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominate Crush 40 for GA status?

I've worked very hard on the Crush 40 article (as I'm sure you all know, I say it all the time), and I was wondering, what would you guys think of me listing it at WP:GAN in the next few days? The picture in the infobox is probably going to go due to copyright issues (both Johnny Gioeli and Jun Senoue are still alive, so it's possible a free pic exists, though I'll be damned if I can find one of both of them), but I really like how it's turned out. What do you guys think? Any suggestions? Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's up now, if nobody caught it. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)