Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  The [[Wikipedia: Gaming Collaboration of the week|Gaming Collaboration of the week]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good idea 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  5 votes per week? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Next GCOTW

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed/Pruned Game Titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --pie4all88 05:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  time for GCOTW changeover + tiebreaking 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pruning

message: 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:
*Computer and video games
*Talk:Computer_and_video_games
**Talk:Computer_and_video_games#Structure
**Talk:Computer_and_video_games#To Do
*Category talk:Computer and video games#Naming dispute
--Slike 11:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance in [[Computer and video games]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Baah... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update it! 

message: From working on this collaboration for a while, I've identified a number of issues. The following are my proposals for improving the project:
#Change the project name to "Electronic Gaming Collaboration of the week", in order to differentiate from other types of gaming.
#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.
#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/.
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)
thread_title:  Various proposals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  code 

message: 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)
thread_title:  gamepad..game controller? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Collaboration

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ending sequence nomination... should be pruned? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fake votes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RollerCoaster Tycoon