Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup

message: This particular task force needs a members section. One of the goals of this task force is to apply global and project consensus on gamecruft issues to local areas where fans "decide" otherwise. In order to do this properly, it needs to be clear that the editor in question is in fact not doing anything random. User:Krator (t c) 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is going to be a task force then I agree, but right now it seem it's still up in the air whether this will be a task force or a department. A member list for a task force will put a more defined sense of responsibility on those listed here. Though a department won't have that, it will still be a defined list of guidelines to cite when disputes arise. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Members section

message: Proposition: all references to notability in this article should be replaced by excessive detail, with grammar changes etc. Argument: cleanup is about otherwise notable subjects that have bad articles. It may be more clear to see that particular notability when an article is cleaned up - this should be expressed in the proposal. It is not the case, however, that the task force is cleaning up not notable material. It is cleaning up material that is excessively detailed in describing the subject. User:Krator (t c) 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I still feel that we should notability should be at least briefly mentioned though. If nothing else as a general guideline we have to adhere to or something to that effect. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: As I mentioned earlier, I think this is a good idea but could easily be subverted into a "deletion blitz" task force. All it would take is someone asserting a whole class of articles is non-notable based on some few examples, then mass-redirect a number of articles while pointing at "Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to clean up content, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes" to stifle all discussion.
I wonder if redirection and deletion decisions shouldn't be left to existing channels, limiting the scope of this project to actually improving articles instead of eliminating them. I expect I'll be out-!voted on this though. Anomie 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is precisely why I think this task force should be limited to removing excessive detail. User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also makes sense. However, I can't help but feel that we'll encounter this whether or not we have deletions in the scope. Should we make some provision for it or make a mention of it in the "What is not" section? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I added something in the "What is not" section about deletion. Let me know what you guys think; if it can be improved/tweaked or needs to be removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, except IMO it needed to mention merges and redirections as well. Redirecting (or poorly merging) an article is a way to effectively delete it without the trouble of AfD. Anomie  —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be a good idea to mention that this would be a useful place to gauge opinion on how "deletion worthy" an article or articles are without the bother of going straight to AfD. For e.g. if I were to say here "I think Article X might need to be deleted but I'm not sure," then members of the Cleanup Department/Task Force can can offer their opinions on it, and it can then be sent to AfD, or cleaned up, depending on the result (of course the result wouldn't be binding, but an indicator would still be useful). As Krator says above, there's no point in cleaning up an article that's non-notable or otherwise un-rescuable, and on the flip-side it would hopefully cut down on notable articles being AfD'd unnecessarily. Miremare 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I guess let's get this sorted out in a separate section. I guess the best way to do so would be to list either Department or Task force followed by a reason why. Of course this isn't a majority vote and we'll go with consensus.
*Department - Task forces can sometimes become inactive, while a department is a fixed list of guidelines for current and future use. While a task force would certainly have it's benefits over a department, a department will provide most of the same benefits as a task force and will provide those benefits better in the long term. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any official pages that state this, but I've never seen a department page with a list of members.  Department pages are usually just guidelines with to-do lists, from my experience anyways. On the other hand, I don't see any reason we can't make a list called Active Users instead of participants. Zemalia (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there aren't specific rules, why don't we just make it a department and have all the other task-force-y bits that we want? Would anyone object, and if so on what grounds if there are no rules on it? Seems to me that any disadvantages to not being one or the other might be a bit uneccessary... Miremare 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. I'm fine either way really, so long as it's nailed down before we get things going. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to confirm things so we can get this out of the way, the consensus is a department with a member list? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe we have a concensus! Zemalia (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Task force or Department

message: After looking over the page again, something occurred to me. It doesn't really mention things like Universe of Kingdom Hearts, Mushroom (Mario), and List of Nexus: The Jupiter Incident ships. Should the "Character articles" section be expanded to encompass all fictional elements of games? Like "characters of", "world of", and other specific supplementary articles. I don't think the wording needs to change too much as the basic idea is there, just need to switch out some nouns here and there. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be a good idea, just to further clarify things.  Definately want to emphasize the need for out of universe context when people are asking for the pages to be cleaned up, otherwise there is going to be some serious merging going on.... Zemalia (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, no need to exclude other fictional elements. Miremare 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I edited and expanded the section to try to encompass all fictional elements. Let me know if it's conveyed properly or any ideas you guys have to improve it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Character articles" section

message: Just wanted to see what everyone thought should be done after an article has been cleaned up? Currently Dark Cloud has had a good deal of progress made with cleaning up. See version comparison. With a little more editing, it should be "cleaned up". My question is what will be done afterwards? I assume it should be archived somewhere like the Assessment and Peer review departments do. Should something like that be created? Also if we do archive it, what information should be listed if any besides an article name? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Cloud

message: Could someone take a look at Rayman Raving Rabbids. I tried cleaning it up some, but since I am not that familiar with the game I did not do that much with it. Here's the edit difference. It wasn't as cluttered with in-game info like Dark Cloud was, but I think an extra pair of eyes would help. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sorted out the dates in the Infobox - Swapping the flagicon for vgrelease. - X201 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thank you very much. Any other ideas, otherwise I'll move it to Archive in a couple of days. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thinned out the intro but I think the main things it needs now is citations and some work doing on the OR stuff like the bugs section. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if that's the case, then clean up is technically done. I'll move it to the archive. Once we've organized the content and tagged stuff as needing citations or being OR, then the department has done what is needed. Of course, feel free to continue improving the article if you'd like. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rayman Raving Rabbids

message: With so many articles and lists that do not belong here, instead of redirecting to articles that are notable enough or just deleting them, shouldn't we be using transwiking to Wikia gaming to our advantage? A lot of articles like these should be moved to its own wiki, which does exist in that case. Using transwiki would also help prevent any redirect from being reverted and save the efforts many had made in building those articles. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we traswiki to wikia very often, but to StategyWiki. But yeah, that is a good idea in general. Slap  on them. Japiekrekel (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And list it here, too. We're about doing, not tagging, here. User:Krator (t c) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another alternative 

message: FYI- The archive page has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup/Archive. The layout includes both "Current Projects" and "Request", but is not set in stone. Leave any suggestions or comments to improve the set up on the discussion page. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: (Not sure if this is the correct place for this post - please move to the correct place if not. Thanks.)
I am a stranger to WikiProject Video games, so I don't know what your standards are, but the article Guitar Hero (series) seems way too long to me. We also have articles on various individual games in the Guitar Heroes series -- see Guitar Hero. 
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, this a suitable place to request stuff like this. You can also list it at the bottom of the main cleanup page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup#Requests for cleanup). Length isn't always an issue when dealing with articles, especially video game series articles. But after glancing over it, some sections could use some trimming and bit more organization. Since it's the holidays right now, most of the editors are kinda of taking it easy, but we'll definitely give it some attention afterwards. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The length for such an article is appropriate, given how many games are in the series and the rather large cultural impact the games have made. In fact, I would say it isn't long enough, as if it was FA quality, it would likely be longer than Crazy Taxi (series). The treatment of individual games as their own articles is also appropriate, given that they are all individually notable. The only thing that is iffy for me is the song lists, which lean a little too much towards game guide material, but seeing as they have been kept in AfDs, I won't go there. Anyhow, if you have a cleanup request, then list it here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Guitar Hero]] articles: IMHO need editing (and possible merge) 

message: I added a request for these topics to be looked at - basically all of the links in Template:Half-Life from Playable characters down. It doesn't seem like proper procedure to request something as large as this in place of individual articles, but it needs confronting. Because there isn't an overriding page to post such a message on, its here instead. There is simply far too many of these articles for one person to deal with, of which they are almost entirely written from an in-universe style, make bad use of fair-use images, provide sparingly little real-world information and none of them establish any sense of notability. -- Sabre (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To test the water, I've put up appropriate cleanup and notability templates to the article Vortigaunt. I'm expecting a rather negative backlash from its fan-writers, but if no notability can be attested to this, I doubt any will can be for most of the rest of the articles I pointed to. -- Sabre (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather taxing for such a wide breadth of articles to be provided, and yes, requesting individual articles would have been slightly better. However, serious cleanup does need to be done, and practically every character from playable characters down can be merged into a List of Half-Life characters (with a corresponding List of Half-Life minor characters if necessary) per WP:FICT. If the aforementioned pages are created, and the relevant merge tags placed on the articles you want merged, then you can put the character lists for request, and this department can facilitate the mergers to the character lists. It would make the cleanup task much clearer and more streamlined. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, for the moment, I'd recommend starting with Vortigaunt (since its now been tagged) and seeing how it goes from there: hopefully attention there will make the necessary editors follow example with the other articles. I'll edit the request to reflect this. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note so I don't forget—after the Half-Life articles have been cleaned and merged where needed, the category :Category:First-person shooter creatures should be reassessed, as it appears to be primarily populated by Half-Life entries. Pagrashtak 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all the creatures have been put together, so I guess the next thing to do is merge all the characters into a list: Adrian Shephard, Barney Calhoun, Arne Magnusson, and on- maybe the G-Man and Alyx can stand alone, (along with Gordon) but the rest should be dropped together. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, I'm pretty much as done as I can be with Vortigaunt. I'm afraid I can't get much development information myself, due to my computer not liking the preview articles for HL1 and HL2 on IGN and GameSpot for some bizarre reason, and the fact that I don't own Raising the Bar. I imagine that those can be used to help finish that last section off, as I've sorted out the other sections. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could help me with that last section. I'll deal with the locations next, due to the recent spate of AfD's leaving some redirected and others (still) in an utter mess, then I'll hit the characters. -- Sabre (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-Life universe topics 

message: Does anyone disagree that it is probably time to start merging those? The few really big ones can be discussed in a new discussion if necessary, but the rest are certainly good to be merged. TTN (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always someone who disagrees. I, however, do not disagree for the majority of them. Pagrashtak 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The King of Fighters

message: The FIFA 08 article previously consisted of a series of lists (leagues, teams, stadiums etc.) which I removed, noting some of the more important info in the existing prose. This has been disputed and there is currently an RfC on the talk page here for the return of the lists. The argument for inclusion seems to be that many other similar articles (FIFA 07, FIFA 06, FIFA Football 2005, FIFA Football 2004 et al) have these too. I can't really say any more there without repeating myself, so I'd appreciate some input from others if possible. Cheers, Miremare 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIFA 08 

message: I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from the Video Game Cleanup community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Interview 

message: From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup:
* Xenosaga as well as the related list of pages:
* Xenosaga 1
* Xenosaga 2
* Xenosaga 3
* Allen Ridgeley
* Chaos (Xenosaga)
* Gaignun Kukai, Jr.
* Jin Uzuki 
* KOS-MOS 
* List of minor characters in Xenosaga
* List of major characters in Xenosaga
* List of antagonists in Xenosaga
* MOMO
* Shion Uzuki
A majority of the material has been transwiki'd to U.M.N. Network.  However, as decided on the U.M.N. Network page, the notice I put on a majority of these pages was considered badly done, and the U.M.N. network page is being deleted.  As a result, I am unsure how to notify the reader that most of the links they click will be taken to a transwiki.  They need to be cleaned up to an out of universe style.  I'd love to do it myself, but I've never even played the game - I was trying to figure out about the game from the article itself, and found it to be a mess.  Please help fix these pages.  Especially remove links to the following redirected pages:
* List of terms in Xenosaga
* List of planets in Xenosaga
* List of organizations in Xenosaga
* List of starships in Xenosaga
Xenosaga contains numerous in-game terms that make the game difficult to describe in an out of universe perspective.  Originally, the terms were shown in a list; list of terms in Xenosaga.  However, that page was deemed messy and was transwiki'd to U.M.N. Network.  Then the page was "deleted" as a redirect to Xenosaga.  The result is that these pages have multiple references to a list page.  I've cleaned up the Xenosaga page personally, so there is no longer the confusing situation of clicking on an unknown term and being redirected back to the original Xenosaga page.  However, the situation still needs to be cleaned up.  Here is what I'd like to see from the cleanup effort:
* Plot rewritten in an out-of-universe style.
* Character pages redone.
* An appropriate way for users to be informed that a majority of links they click will take them to a gaming wiki.
* A cleanup of the transwiki to be done so that readers can understand the terms and be easily redirected back to wikipedia.
--Markozeta (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Xenosaga]] 

message: The PoPoLoCrois article currently focuses solely on the PSP game (which is a compilation of several earlier RPG's released only in Japan.  I can't find the reference in the MoS but as I understand it, and article named PoPoLoCrois should focus on the entire series or on the original work, not a later compilation.  Am I wrong?  Would it be appropriate to propose a merge with the anime page and try to find information on the earlier games?  Any advice would be much appreciated.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone?  --Kraftlos (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PoPoLoCrois