Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles/Archive 1

message: If criticism is posted in the summaries on this page constructive suggestions should also be addded, or the note fleshed out here in the talk page. F.i.,
* The real-time tactics article: "Not so much in depth as it should be"; what did the editor find missing?
* The comment on Computer and video game genres, "This article is just plain weird"; eh? Not very helpful.
* Simulation game, "...noticing a trend? Needs focus"
etc...
In short, there have been quite a few disorganised, almost raving, POV-infested complaint-edits to the page lately without accompanying constructive efforts. Mikademus 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's no Peer Review, that's for sure; I just call it as I see it and move on. Ideally the Workshop would solve this, but it hasn't been touched in a while. The CVG template on talk pages has a built-in ToDo list, and that would also be a better place for in-depth comments. Lengthy comments in tables, not so much so. Nifboy 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it would be good if you could drop few notes on what you're missing in the talk of the relevant articles and I'll see if I can contribute sometihng to the ones I'm watching. Mikademus 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of those aren't mine. But I've killed some of the more egregious examples. Nifboy 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanted: Constructive criticism

message: It might be an idea to nominate this article for the GCOTW. Jacoplane 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: I'm not sure if I should just put these on the main page or not, so for now I'll put them here:
*Computer and video game genres and possibly each individual main genre's article, too
*Video game console and/or List of video game consoles 
*Handheld game consoles
*Game controller
Might come up with more stuff later. Oh, and what about arcade stuff? Are we covering that too? --ADeveria 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'll add the following articles to my suggestion, then:
*Arcade game
*Golden Age of Arcade Games
*Multiplayer (Singleplayer probably isn't quite worth it)
*MMORPG
--ADeveria 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested articles

message: According to this week's Signpost, the article validation feature will be going live soon. I think that once this feature is available we should use it to establish the quality of the articles found in this list. If everyone in the wikiproject does the validation that would provide us with a more general consensus on the quality of articles. Jacoplane 06:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds interesting. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using article validation 

message: How about starting a collaboration similar to the GCOTW, but focused entirely on articles on this list. ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles/Workshop ??). We'd try and move an article up to Good article status, and move on. There is currently no active way to work on non-stubs articles within the scope of the Wikiproject, this seems like a good place to start. Jacoplane 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive, but it seems to be dead. Some of the most essential ones might go to the main Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Nifboy 03:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. I've mentioned it here too. Actually getting articles nominated for the general AID is kind of a bitch, we can spend a long time with process/voting. Therefore I think we should just move ahead here, even if we have less people. Lead by example! Jacoplane 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. If I read you correctly, this wouldn't be a weekly thing; more of an open-ended time frame? Hopefully after enough work is done on the essential articles, we could entend this to CVG articles in general (although that's probably a pipe dream in all reality). I'm all for moving forward on this, although I think the "workshop" should cover two or three articles at a time, switching them out as needed. --Pagrashtak 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop 

message: I though it would be a good idea to sort out individual games by systems, so I started by listing notable games for the NES, SNES and N64.  Of course, there are plenty of systems to go, such as the Xbox, the PS systems, and the handhelds, among others.  It's important that we establish good articles for games spanning every system, in addition to all the other video game-related topics. -- gakon5
:I would actually like to keep as few individual game articles as possible, being that, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't essential except for a small handful. There might be a case for a separate Wikireader for individual games, though, so I'm going to leave the section in. Nifboy 06:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be ideal to pick 5-15 essential games for each system as the primary list of individual games. Such a categorization would be easy to select any desired total number of games from. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same hand, how many of these are part of a series? Almost all the killer apps for Nintendo systems are part of the Zelda, Metroid, or Mario series, for example. We've already got both the Zelda series and Link; do we also need LoZ, LttP, and OoT? Nifboy 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The purpose of this list is to provide an index, not to represent a final selection. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 11:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I can't argue with that. It was just something that was bothering me. That's all. Nifboy 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add them yourself. Be Bold! (Edit: I have since added sections for the DS and PSP, particularly since Nintendogs is a really good idea.) Nifboy 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider it done. I also added a few GBA and DS games I thought should be included. They're not rated, but then again it doesn't seem that rare... If you see any games I missed, feel free to add them. 1337 r0XX0r 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops. I forgot about the Game Boy Color. And I forgot to take the GBA games out of "Game Boy". I'll fix it quick. But does anyone know of any good Game Boy Color games? I only remember the Pokemon ones... Guess I'll have to research. :p 1337 r0XX0r 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games by system 

message: I've changed the page to where featured articles and good articles are above A and repesented by the appropriate icons. They could possibly use a different background color. Let me know what you think. --Pagrashtak 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's how every other worklist I've seen does it. Some articles ought to be re-rated now, though. Nifboy 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured and good articles 

message: There is an article assesment system here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, which we should probably adopt for this page too. Jacoplane 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. I think ours is "close enough" as to be compatable; the only major difference being that we call our "start" articles C articles and our stubs D articles (neither of which are up for consideration for 1.0). Nifboy 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. In any case I think the 1.0 Editorial team is held up in endless discussions about policy and I have seen few actual steps towards 1.0 come from them. I think we should just push ahead ourselves. jacoplane 02:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Article assessment is another interesting system of assessing articles. Something similar to this might be good for the Workshop. jacoplane 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that 1.0 has rewritten the scale to put A-class above GA, maybe we should switch over to the 1.0 scale. Nifboy 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards set by [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] 

message: I may just be imagining things but I feel like theres a little bit of systemic bias towards popular genres (real time strategy versus turn based or management games), bias towards console games rather than pc games as being more influential, bias torwards Japanese developers (console) being more influential. Bias i mean in terms of choosign whats essential. I mean of course we can comte to a consensus, but these biaseas are ones that I feel are endemic to wikipedia in terms of size and scope of articles of these types. --Larsinio 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been using popularity as a factor of how essential a subject is, so I'm not convinced that, in and of itself, a bad thing. From this everything else follows. I do confess to a US bias, though, and you're welcome to make your own additions and change things as you see fit. Nifboy 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: Is this page subject to WP:NPOV? I said the following about Real-time strategy and it was edited with the comment "NPOV". Because I really do think it's important, I'm placing the comment here in full: "(No refs, history is mostly a list of games and weasel words; for example, no discussion of WHY Warcraft and Warcraft 2 "arguably usherd in the era of contemporary RTS by its treatment of the burgeoning genre elements and grundbreaking popularity.")". Nifboy 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of this page is to collect points of view. I suggest restoring the comments. Fredrik Johansson 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. I'm separating my comments with bullets and signing without date to encourage multiple points of view per entry. Nifboy 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This invites counter-commenting. It might get messy... Mikademus 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does, just take it to the article's talk page and leave a note that its status is disputed. Fredrik Johansson 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: I love consoles and PCs the same, really, but much of the list, specifically the 'individual games' section, ignores PC games. Yeah, you have your ubiquitous Dooms and Nethacks, but there's little else, and there is definitely a hell of a lot of important PC Games in history. The 'games by system' section covers a fair bit, and maybe it's just me, but I feel like it's lacking. Lockeownzj00 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add what you feel is important. Me, my comp is a PoS so I don't really keep up with the important PC games. Nifboy 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Console Bias?