Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 12 December 2011 (simplify sig to make wikicode easier to read, or fix previous sig edit using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This is the place for complaints, advice, chatter, or whatever else. If somebody makes a rant/vandalism comment here, leave it be unless it removes content.
I normally archive this page after around 35 to 40 messages (or if it gets to be over 30 kb), but if comments are made in continuation of a discussion I have archived, I will add them to the archive.
Oh, and remember to leave new messages below previous ones. Thanks.
To new and even more interesting projects, of course!
As announced in the newsletter, I've been preparing to co-coordinate a large collaboration/competition called Around the World. It was going to be run at the Awards Center, but since that no longer exists, the collaboration will be hosted somewhere else.
Around the World will begin July 15th as planned - it's location will be announced soon.
It'll be a blast. In the competition, participants will be helping to develop over 200 pages (drafts, which will be moved to article space once they are ready), using advanced tools to edit every single one of them!
This is going to be interesting.
And the event shall have awards which are being created specifically for it as we speak!
If you would like me to keep you informed of this and other interesting collaborations I'll be working on and/or organizing in the future, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll be happy to keep you in the know.
The event is being co-sponsored by Wikiproject Lists of basic topics and WikiProject Geography, and participants will be "traveling" all around "the World" visiting each country online (here on Misplaced Pages and perhaps beyond) as they apply advanced wiki-tools to improve pieces of the profiles of each and every country on Earth!. Each pass through these pages is a "trip around the World..."
Each page presents essential information on each country in a topic outline format, for ease of overviewing and navigating. Most of the topics presented are linkified, which turns these pages into a hypertextual map to material about each country on Misplaced Pages. When completed, they shall all become part of Misplaced Pages's contents system.
The pages share a standard format, with the information on each country presented in the same general order. So rather than getting stuck on a single country trying to complete it, each participant works on all 200+ political entities, completing a single data item or detail across all of the pages!
For this they use advanced tools like WP:AWB, Linky, etc. It goes fast, and since others are doing this at the same time, it makes "the World" feel like a beehive, and the participants are its bees. :) The energy is contagious.
And since you are moving from country to country, the tasks make it feel like you are traveling around the world, and you get to learn a little about every country as you do so.
This approach also allows for greater efficiency, because by the time you've done 30 or so of a particular item, you've figured out how to finish it faster and more effectively (such as where to find the data or how to make adjustments), and this specialization speeds up development - but more importantly it reduces errors.
The tasks are varied, which adds even more variety to the project. Some tasks are look-ups-and-fill-ins, some are copy and paste, some are image hunts, some are maintenance adjustments, some are link fixing, some are blue-linking (creating an underlying redirect so a link turns blue), some are fact checking, etc.
For an example of what a nearly complete page looks like, see these:
Standing by to help are co-coordinators, who can lend a helping hand to participants, provide instruction and tips on how to use the tools, and help them find what they are looking for. Co-coordinators also use advanced tools to inspect the work of participants, and touch it up as needed, or if a task was done wrong throughout, point this out to the participant so he or she can make the necessary corrections.
Co-coordinators are working on the set of pages right now, to familiarize themselves with "the World" so they can help more effectively by the time the main event starts. But there's still lots of preparation left to be done, and we are looking for editors experienced in advanced wikitools who would like to become co-coordinators.
In many video game articles, the Reception section is the last main section of prose. As its name suggests, within the section you should summarize the critical reaction to the game. The section should provide a high-level overview of what the critics liked and didn’t like about the game; it is a summary, not a repetition of what publications thought. Therefore, don’t put in excessive, long winded quotes or have a paragraph detailing IGN’s thoughts on the game. To prevent cluttering of the prose with scores, reviews table such as {{VG Reviews}} can be used to organize this kind of information.
A good way to lead off the section is a by-the-numbers or at a glance snapshot of the game’s reception; you can use aggregate scores to suggest an overall critical response to the game, and can provide sales figures (if you have them) for the game’s release. Commonly, the rest of the reception is broken into positive and negative paragraphs. Entirely separate ‘Praise’ and ‘Controversy’ or ‘Negative comments’ or the like are strongly discouraged as troll magnets. If the game has won any awards, then listing them at the bottom of the reception section is an option.
Other things to remember:
Don’t list every single review in the reviews table; likewise, don’t mention every award the game has ever gotten.
Generally, talk about what the reviewers say rather than speaking for them; for example, “Reviewer X of Publication Y took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z” instead of “Review X said that “I took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z.” If a reviewer has a good comment which sums up the positive/negative/overall reaction, or a particular sentiment common in many reviews, it might be more appropriate to use.
If adding sales data, make sure to provide context; did it sell those 4.2 million units within three months of release or three years? If possible, break down the sales by region; did the Japanese like the game, but Americans not buy it?
Use reviews whose scores are outliers from the average ratings to find key points that were liked or disliked about a game. If all reviews except for one average around a 9 out of 10, and the one is a 7 out of 10, there is probably some clear negative points to be found in it; the same works with very positive reviews.
Perhaps most importantly, give proper weight and keep a neutral point of view. If the game received mostly negative scores, having three paragraphs on positive aspects and glossing over the bad parts in a sentence or two conveys the wrong impression to readers.
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES10:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles.
Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted.
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page.
Feature: Reliable Sources
A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Misplaced Pages's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Misplaced Pages's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source.
To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list!
Incidentally, if you're keen to keep your assessing skills honed, we are currently very short of reviewers for Milhist A-Class reviews. Broadly, the five A-Class criteria are just beefed up versions of the B-Class criteria and anyone with B-Class experience should have no trouble with them. Also, as a reminder, in the wide-ranging A-Class review, it is not necessary to comment on all five criteria: if you're short of time, you can simply focus on the aspects that interest you most (sources, comprehensiveness, prose, graphic content or whatever). You can track which articles are up for A-Class using this template: {{WPMILHIST A-Class Review alerts}}
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Misplaced Pages's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Misplaced Pages-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Misplaced Pages-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Hi Fusionmix. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας•discussion•22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Misplaced Pages 0.7
Misplaced Pages 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Misplaced Pages, compiled by the Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
I'm using a school computer at the moment, so I don't know the exact specs for my operating system. However, I'm also using an older version of Huggle as the most recent one is marked as broken. DARTH PANDA14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Status report on the Country outlines (Around the World) project
Penubag has been hard at work developing awards for this project. He has completed a very professional looking medal, and is almost done with a trophy that is truly awesome - both of these awards are visually stunning.
I and a few others have been working steadily on the country outlines - one for every country of the world! They're shaping up nicely. So far, 28 of them have been moved to article space - these aren't complete, but they are complete enough to be made available for readers to benefit from them. The rest of the set still includes temporary data that was generated by template (because it matched most but not all of the countries), and before the lists can be moved to article space, all the temporary data needs to be checked for accuracy, and if incorrect it needs to be replaced with correct information.
The effort on the lists has been on 3 fronts:
Working on the lists in article space to complete them so they will be good examples for editors working on the rest of the set.
Adding or correcting other data (fixing redlinks, filling in blanks, etc.). The main type of work participants in "the contest" will be doing. The reason we're doing this is to get a feel for it, to develop the fastest methods for each type of task, etc.
Improving the overall design and implenting changes on all 247 pages, whether in article space or not.
There has been some opposition to us running the contest based on edit counts or iterations. The concern is that we should reward quality work and not quantity, for fear of crappy edits done quickly without thought. I pointed out that the collection of pages are drafts in the Misplaced Pages namespace (therefore posing no danger to article space) and that most of the work needs to be done with power tools like AWB and Linky (which are specifically designed for repetitive work), but the reply was that we shouldn't set the precedent of rewarding barnstars for numerically-based tasks, and implied the threat of continuously MfD'ing the contest if we attempted to do so (like they did with the Awards Center - I was very surprised and disappointed that participants didn't step up to defend it). So we need to be careful in determining what exactly the awards will represent, and how they will be awarded.
Since rewarding iterations (passes with AWB on all of the pages in the set) are out, we really don't need the globe in stand anymore. Two awards should suffice.
Once we get started with the contest, I'd like to kick the whole thing off with a round of medals for those dedicated few who have worked hard on the project so far.
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
Fusionmix, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Misplaced Pages this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Misplaced Pages has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Misplaced Pages: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Misplaced Pages defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Misplaced Pages.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Misplaced Pages's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Misplaced Pages article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Misplaced Pages and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Misplaced Pages.
Hello, Fusionmix! You are receiving this message because you are on WikiProject Homeschooling's list of members. WikiProject Homeschooling is holding a roll call to identify active members. All members will be listed under "Pending". Please move your name to "Active" or "Inactive" based on your ability or interest in contributing to the project. After two weeks all names still listed under "Pending" will be moved to "Inactive". If you are actively interested in participating, we are in the process of trying to revive the project and would welcome any help. Discussion can be found at the project talk page. Cheers! 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Cave Story Title Screen.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Cave Story Title Screen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Previous issue | Next issue 
